Nice ad hominem.
It wasn't an ad hominem and an ad hominem wasn't intended. BTW, there must be a target of an ad hominem. If you read this in the context of the discussion it was written in, you'd see there was no target.
So apparently you just take exception to the statement.
Science is not about 'creation'. Religion is about creation. 'Creation science' is an oxymoron.
You were equating "creation science" with "quackery." Therefore those scientists who hold creation science as a more plausible explanation of "all this" are quacks. That's an ad hominem attack -- to dismiss the arguments by dismissing those who argue them.
This whole scientific inquiry is about where all this stuff came from, and how it develops/changes. If that inquiry logically leads to a Designer, then what?
We all approach this with presuppositions. I approach it with the presupposition that God exists, and that He's revealed Himself through Jesus. You may believe that God does not exist, or that He's irrelevant. And that presupposition prohibits you from even considering an alternative to evolution. The challenge is to consider the evidence and let it lead us to uncomfortable territory....