Can science support creationism?

It's all getting a bit heated. Buz, I think the best thing to do is to restate your assertion as to what science supports creationism, so we can move past these accusations of people not replying to points.How about the account in genesis which puts the order of creation as plants-birds-aquatic animals-land animals-man? That fits with the fossil evidence quite well.That could be considered as scientific evidence that the genesis account is accurate to some degree, therefore substantiating (though not directly proving) ideas of a creator.

Or for that matter miracles.If a miracle is defined as an event contrary to naturalistic explanations and ammendments to naturalistic theories cannot solve the problem, then this is indicative of supernaturalistic events - which support (again indirectly) the basic premise of a creator.

Just trying to think from a creationist point of view.It has the general idea - simplicity to complexity, Humans last. Aside from the bizarre genesis obsession with "waters" the construction of the universe follows, very roughly, the order cosmology puts it in.

Ok that's out the window then.What about miracles? All we'd have to do is find one.