Here’s a hint for you: Anything that can not be re-produced is not science. Both evolution and creation are not scientific theories, neither can they be re-produced.
Creation ‘science’ simply points out the philosophical nature of the argument while also producing all the hidden, glossed-over and ignored evidence that evolution does not care to let be seen ‘in the light of day’.
Your statement that "creation science" is not scientific is certainly true.
But your criticism of evolution is not, for multiple reasons:
"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world."An older meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained "
So, originally science needed to be "reliable," "logical" and "rational."
Today science needs also to be "testable."
Additionally, the scientific method requires explanations be "reproducible":
"A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these findings to make useful predictions."This is done partly through observation of natural phenomena, but also through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions.
"Taken in its entirety, a scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving whilst minimizing any effects of subjective bias on the part of its users (namely the confirmation bias)."
Both elements of basic evolution are observed and reproducible facts.