Creation-science implies that things have occured which are out side of the handling of law, specifically, natural law. Even the creation scientists believe that ``we cannot discover by scientific investigation [God's creation of the universe.]'' Law is also broken when asked for us to take the bible literally. It implies that the Earth is, indeed, much younger than scientific records show. Creation-scientists also would like us to believe that there was indeed once, a great flood. All of these things, in actuality, defy natural laws.
Since these things defy natural laws, it is very difficult for us to provide valid explanaions and predictions. Evolutionists can explain and predict why certain bones are similar across species. Creationists give no explanations and will make no predictions regarding even just these ``homologies''. They provide no reason for why something is one way, and not the other. In this case, they provide no reason to explain creation-science.
As with Freud, creation-science lacks in explaining things at more than just an ad-hoc level. It does not put forth any valid experiment so that it can help move itself along. They seem to hide their ``empirical'' proof away, due to fear of counter empirical evidence.
The nails in the coffin for Creation Science seems to be the fact that they are dogmatists, and lack integrity! They oft times misuse quotations, and are rather dogmatic (sometimes fanatically so) in what they believe. In science, a real science, we sometimes have to realise when we are wrong and proceed forward. Creation science lacks this ability to move forward with new information. Finally, Creation Science oft time removes, or is selective of the type of information relayed by the evolutionists. The most famous example of this is the ``we are descended from monkies'' bit. Utterly it is a slanted version of the argument. These attacks on the scientists personal character does nothing to keep the creation scientist's argument valid.