Depends upon your definition of "creationism." If it's God as fundamental creator, prime cause, first cause, originator, etc., then you're right. If it's in the vein of "a global flood formed the Grand Canyon and man lived with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago", well, there are many dissenters.
I'm right because the word creation has a specific meaning which you have described accurately.
What's more, abusing the word does science no favors. Most folk don't understand the nuance when technophiles use the newspeak version. The net result is the wedge goes ever deeper and since "creationists' far outnumber technophiles blowback is inevitable.
What aout "God acted just enough to make evolution false, but not so much as we can prove?"