In their book “What is Creation Science?” Henry Morris and Gary Parker contrast the evolution and creation world views/models and state: “The second world view–creation–maintains that the universe is not self-contained, but that it must have been created by processes which are not continuing as natural processes in the present.”
They go on to say: “Scientific creationism” can be discussed quite independently of “religious creationism”…
So as I understand it, religion (specifically the Bible) may motivate scientific creationism but is not part of the discipline. All arguments within creation science should be ones that could in principle convince any reasonable person. In short they should be based on evidence and follow logical methods of argument.
The problem with this is, how can we say anything about “processes which are not continuing as natural processes in the present” without getting into religion? Can we infer something about these creation processes from observing the present world? We may be able to infer that design exists in creation (as Dembski argues) but that does not get us very far.
Perhaps the only way to approach this is via counterfactuals. Recall that counterfactuals are subjunctive conditionals so they concern what would have or might have occurred. We need to think about the kind of design problems solved by the designs we observe, taking into consideration that the designs may be obscured by natural processes over time. As we know more about these design scenarios, we may be able to predict designs before we observe them.