Generic creationism is pretty well spelled out in Genesis. And it seems to me God is extraordinarily forthcoming in the description of the early universe in Genesis 1. You do have to realize, however, that the time questions involved in these texts are not asked according to the "normal" time of human experience. Indeed, the early verses describe things that are not "in time" at all. In reading Genesis, I see nothing at all incompatible with state-of-the-art physics. I see the singularity, I see the big bang, I see the inflationary universe; I see the universal vacuum field; I see the emergence of the primordial light out of which all matter was made; I see the inception of Life, and the constitution of a hierarchy of living beings with man at its summit. Etc.
Am I being "subjective" here?
If you feel free to fiddle with the interpretation of time in Genesis (which many do not) you may as well take note of the fact that there is no literal discussion of method. Genesis says that life came from non-life. The process is not described in scientific terms, so any interpretation is simply personal opinion.
I find it the height of vanity that some people will promote their personal opinion over the evidence found in existence itself. If creation is the word of God, then it is available to all men at all times; no translation required. You do not need to be born in a priveleged time or place, or have parents who inculcate you with the correct theology.
Science speaks the same language to all people in all times and places, without regard to religion, race, nationality, gender. there are thousands of religions at war with each other. Scientists, regardless of religion or politics, reason together.
Not "subjective", but seemingly ambibuous. When you say "generic creationism is pretty well spelled out in Genesis", does that mean that other religions (not just specifically Islam) that believe in the creation of the universe by a supernatural diety don't really believe in "creationism" if that account doesn't agree with Genesis?
The word "creationism" appears in virtally any standard reference dictionary you can find. Why is it necessary to dance around simply settling on the commonly used and understood meaning of the word based on those references? It seems a reasonable proposition that in any debate that there needs to be mutual agreement by all parties on a common, objective, and equally accessible source of the definitions of the principle terms involved. Somehow that seems to be too much to ask for.