Biblical literalists, also known as Young Earth Creationists (YECs), often claim to use science to support their beliefs. This Creation Science cannot be true science, however, as science in its ideal form cannot be used as a crutch for any one belief system. YECs' "scientific method" is flawed from the outset because these pseudo-scientists start off with a "truth" (ie the Earth being 5000 years old) and then attempt to find evidence to back it up.
Of course, the reverse should be true
Beyond the flawed logic of its followers, the Biblical story of Creation is damned, so to speak, as a scientific theory because it is not potentially falsifiable. The theory of evolution is a legitimate one because a single piece of solid evidence could prove it to be false. This is not so with Biblical Creation. If one can somehow navigate the twisted trail of "evidence," dogma and rumoured living fossils, one eventually finds the Big Guy. God did it.
"The Grand Canyon was created in forty days and forty nights by the Great Flood."
"Assuming that's possible (it's not), where did the Flood come from?"
"It rained really hard./The icecaps melted./There were subterranean resevoirs that emptied./et cetera
"And what caused that?"
"God did it."
Therein lies the problem with Creationism. After all of the pseudo-scientific runaround, it's still "God did it," just like it always was. The Creationists use their deity as a safety net for their scientific dabblings. Is there a crack in the facade of the theory? Just say God did it, and they can't say "No, you're wrong." One cannot disprove the existence of God.
Where does this leave us? With a rapidly growing Christian sect, mostly confined to the United States (although I hear that it's gaining a foothold in Italy), whose foundation is circular logic. God's creation of the Universe 5000 years ago is, apparently, evidence for God's creation of the Universe 5000 years ago.
I have a headache. | 
