An act of creation itself would be transcendant, but all subsequent events would presumably fall within the realm of natural science. This is where the somewhat misnamed 'creation science' comes into play - not in trying to explain the act of creation itself, but in understanding how natural laws then took us from Point A (creation) to Point B (now), and explaining contemporary evidence within this reference frame.
I am one of those people who limits the term 'science' to understanding how the natural world works in terms of regular, repetitive processes (natural laws); this is distinct from 'history' which is the study of unique events that occur within a space-time framework. That is, 'what temperature does water boil at' is a scientific question, 'did Bob boil water last Thursday' is a historical one, that cannot be verified with experiments at a later date.
(Caveat: Although science cannot prove a historical hypothesis, only showing that it is _possible_, it can in principle show that a given historical hypothesis is _impossible_ if it is shown to involve a violation of natural law, assuming the historical hypothesis only involves natural causes.)
I'll shut up now before I really get going... ;-)
I, as an atheist and one who accepts evolution, would not argue with that - for I could not. I'd have absolutely NO problem with that contention, as it is admitting that God and His creation transcends natural law and tehrefore, science. If all creationists could admit that, and not bludgeon us with silly articles purporting to BE scientific, I think we could all move on fruitfully.
Since God is greater than science, then how do you go on so, bitterly clinging to the notion that observations of His creation scientifically are "silly" and can't even BE scientific?
Read my tagline. What's silly is to demand little children be indoctrinated in secular humanism religion and sue anyone that gets in the way.