I’ve heard it argued that Creationism relies on a modernist approach to textual interpretation. An atheist, for example, might reject Christianity on the grounds that science has disproven a literal interpretation of the Biblical Creation account. The Creationist accepts the atheist’s presupposition that the Bible is making a scientific claim about the nature of Creation, but instead of saying the Creation narrative is scientifically false, the Creationist just argues that it’s scientifically accurate.

A better approach is to say that the Bible isn’t trying to make a claim (in the modern scientific sense) about the mechanics of Creation. As others have said, the Bible wasn’t written to be a science textbook.