What is your definition of a creationist. If you go to a 'creationist' website, it says that in order to be a creationist one has to put the Bible first and if science conflicts with the Bible, then one must alter the science to match the Bible.
If science isn't about truth or proof, then what's the problem?
Science is altered all the time. What's *true* today is not likely to be *true* next week or next year.
Why should we alter the Bible to fit something that is constantly changing?
I just love how evos and scientists have fits about someone not accepting their latest pronouncements about "scientific" advances and then later go on to change that very thing themselves when it suits their needs (the one where there's so much evidence that they can't NOT change it without looking like fools).
Like with the steady state theory that held such sway at the beginning of the century. The scientific community held to the steady state theory of the universe, to the point where Einstein engaged in fraud by adding the cosmologic constant to his formulas for make them fit the theory instead of adjusting the theory to fit the data. The only ones who had reason to believe that the universe had a beginning were the Bible believing Christians.
That is, until Hubble's observations confirmed that Einsteins original equations were correct and he had no choice but to admit that he was wrong and remove the constant.
In that case, there was a conflict between Scripture and science and look at who was right.
So what's the problem with adjusting science to fit the Bible again?
So much for scientific integrity.