"The modern American creationist, interestingly enough, no longer takes scripture as sufficient reason to believe the Biblical account of the origins of the world. The debate is, instead, conducted on the turf of science, with creationists attempting to argue the fine points of the age of the fossil record, suggesting that orthodox evolution has gaps as a seamless explanation, and otherwise indicating their acceptance that the modern world speaks the language of science."
The key is "speaking the language" of science, not actually _doing_ science.
Neo-creationists use scientific terms and talk about scientific theories, but do not advance any scientific theories or apply those terms to their own thinking. The creationist standpoint is and always has been that a literal interpretation of particular English translations of the Bible is unquestionably factually accurate, and that anything which contradicts that interpretation is to be attacked by any means available.
The only difference is that now they talk about things "irreducible complexities" (which aren't) and "the lack of transitional forms" (which isn't) as a scientific-sounding cover.
In other words, they believe in creationism just because the Bible and their church say so, but they try to make it sound scientifical for their propaganda. Science has a hard-earned cachet that comes from many years of delivering the goods, and creationists would like to co-opt that.
"The modern American creationist, interestingly enough, no longer takes scripture as sufficient reason to believe the Biblical account of the origins of the world. The debate is, instead, conducted on the turf of science, with creationists attempting to argue the fine points of the age of the fossil record, suggesting that orthodox evolution has gaps as a seamless explanation, and otherwise indicating their acceptance that the modern world speaks the language of science."