Their example of creationism is not actually an example of their philosophy. They write:
If two such physical theories or models accurately predict the same events, one cannot be said to be more real than the other; rather, we are free to use whichever model is more convenient.
Now, the predictions of creationism are flatly false.
The only way one can even attempt to square creationism with observation is through omphalism --- but that makes no actual predictions, it just runs to keep up.
The nicest thing I can think is that they're using "creationism" in a private and technical sense --- for example, if all they mean by it is the hypothesis that God made the Big Bang go bang.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2