What would be the point of that? That's like me asking you to make a defense of orthodox Darwinism without reference to a religion or a philosophy. I doubt you could do it.
It demonstrates that there's no "personal bias" involved.
Or is "creationism" like "art" - you can't tell me what it is, but you know it when you see it (ie totally subjective).
This is moving faster than I can respond, and others have said most of what I would want to say. Accepting evolution would be a rare thing for a devout Muslim.
When I say creationist, I have some rather specific minimal criteria in mind. The most critical aspect of creationism is denial that natural process can lead to speciation and have, in fact, resulted in the common descent of multi-celled life on this planet. It’s a bit more complex for single celled organisms, since genetic sharing is commonplace.
The phrase “natural processes” needs some discussion. When I use it I do not hypothesize about how or why the universe exists or why the rules are what they are. I simply assert that the behavior of things is consistent over time, and no entity reaches in to cause earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroids, or evolution. The game board is set up and the game is played by the rules. I do not rule out the possibility of miracles; I simply don’t see any reason for science to deal with them. I know of no case where science could add anything to a claim for a miraculous occurrence. Nor do I know of any large scale event, such as evolution, the requires postulating a miracle.