Your apparent disdain for the scientific method wouldn't by any chance have something to do with a failure to be able to present evidence for creationism using that method, would it? It doesn't work for you, so you're going to claim it's unfair? Here's a suggestion: by all means validate creationism for yourself in other ways; but if you cannot present evidence for its validity as science, don't call it science and don't claim that it ought to be taught in science classes.

Telling me that the "rules" for creationism are different would also seem to place it outside of the realms of science, because scientists have to employ the scientific method and have their work peer reviewed by others who do. But please tell me, because this sounds really interesting: how exacly are your own rules different, and why do they demonstrate the truth of your position and the falsehood of mine?