Creationists could, of course, make this claim: that the creation, the flood, etc, were miraculous events. In fact, creation "science" of the Henry Morris flavour has only existed for several decades.

The problem with this is the "science" part. If creationists want schools to teach their ideas, they need to push them from a non-religious standpoint, which means trying to conceal God's signature. How do you try to convince people of their legitimacy? By claiming that they are science; and religious fundamentalists with little or no scientific education will accept it without question. Thus we get people like Baumgardner and Woodmorappe who spend their time writing astoundingly complicated accounts of how these things really did happen (when the usual scientific explanations actually turn out to be simpler, and fit the observable evidence rather better -- witness CTD's struggles to address any of the evidence presented by evolutionists here).

So will a creationist give it up and admit that it all had to have been a miracle in order to have been possible at all? No, for the above reasons. You can't scientifically study a miracle, it's in the realm of what Dawkins-types call magic. Though you never know, one or two of them here might admit it eventually, if they're honest with themselves. None of them have been able to make much headway here by presenting creationism as science.

If you go more deeply into the implications of this, you have to reconcile the idea that even if the world is 6,000 years old, and there was a Biblical flood which carved the Grand Canyon, and the Noah story is true, etc, then for some mysterious reason God made the earth appear to be old, and sorted fossils around the world in order to make it appear that they evolved, right down to things like his decision to make claws, fingernails, horns, and hooves all out of the same material (keratin) even though he could have chosen any material to use for each creature . . . and genetics, well that's a whole can of worms in itself. The "miracle" idea does not explain any of these things. Though it would be fun to talk to a creationist who wanted to argue from this standpoint. I've never encountered one.