Working hypotheses, theories, and laws are only as strong as the underlying assumptions and the supportive evidence. Much evidence exists to support an old universe and macroevolution. There is some evidence that contradicts these positions, more so macroevolution than the age of the universe. However, the underlying assumption of mainstream science, that of non-intervention by an intelligent designer, is incorrect.
Science cannot be done without the assumption of non-intervention. Science is looking for regularity.
Creationism is spookism. The founder of Kwanza says so, and the evolutionists here agree. So the fact is, you can't associate some theory of some people with some other something or other (qh)
Actually, science must assume that a designer is not necessary to describe the world because there is no way to test for the presence of a designer. If there is a designer, then science will never be able to detect the presence of the designer. It just isn't in the realm of science to do so. That should not cause problems for creationists unless they believe that all truth must come from science. Since they are required to believe in God by faith alone, and science doesn't allow its findings to be based on faith, then logically creationists must not believe that all truth comes from science. I have no problem with teaching the idea that the universe is designed. I DO have a problem, however, with calling this idea science. It is not a scientific idea, and therefore should not be taught in a science class. Personally, I believe that a high school class dealing with the beliefs of all of the major world religions would be of immense value for students. (Much more so than most of the crap that's being taught in "social studies" classes today.) In such a class, teaching the idea of a designed universe certainly has its place.