As far as I can see (and I am short so I can't see far) the evidence for a creator is inferential. We attribute physiological experiences to existential causes.
In my job I see many people complaining of chest pains to discociations of mind; my patients swear blind it has to have some physical cause. It takes a great deal of work to alter their beliefs about their symptoms.
Science looks at a phenomena in question and formulates a tentative hypothesis. We try as hard as we can to regect it. We say "this head ache was caused by (insert reason)". We then do as much as we can to 'rule out' that reason. In my role I help patients 'rule out' reasons for their symptoms by using a logical approach. We look at concrete evidence such as medical test results, we look at cognitive distortions being made, the negative recall bias, the fundemental attribution error etc. Above all we try to rule out the beliefs we have.
If we can't do this then we can conclude that we were probably right with our tentative hypothesis. Not proved mind you, just most likely.
I would contend that the science used by creationists tries to 'rule in' divine creation. This is the distinction that I feel on balance invalidates the use of the word science in this context.
™ Version 4.2
