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....
You are confusing religion with science. Scientists who confuse religion with science are not quacks. They are wrong. Religion is not science and science is not religion.
BTW, I did not equate 'creation science' with 'quackery'. I said it couldn't be elevated to the same level as 'quackery'. Because it is trying to equate religion with science it is more insidious.
And finally, my belief in God has nothing to do with evolution or science. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, a higher being, a prime mover, etc. And it doesn't it try to.
Unfortunately, for over 500 years, some adherents of some religions are always attacking science thinking that science is attacking religion. It does not and never has.