Isn't it a bit of a stretch to call creationists "scientists"? To date, so-called creation "scientists" have yet to make a scientific discovery, propose a testable hypothesis, or formulate a theory. That rather disqualifies them as "scientists", IMHO.
If I understand the reasoning of creationists, they make a distinction between different types of science:
They make the distinction between:
* origins science and
* operational science.
Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s word —— repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton.
However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work.
Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.
With this distinction in mind, creationists argue that both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science.
Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past.
At least, that’s the way I understand their argument.