No. If you refer to creationism or "creation science", no. In the first place, there is no such thing as a creation theory; the best attempts so far are nothing more than hypotheses, posited by virtue of a need to justify a literal interpretation of The Bible.

They will only become theories when the evidence supports that viewpoint; suffice to say, it won't.

Further to this, there is no evidence to support the few basic claims made by creationists, such as a young earth/universe, direct creation 'as-is' of all species, and most of the myths in the Old Testament (such as Noah's flood). All evidence suggests the complete opposite: an old earth and universe, gradual development of biodiversity, and the absence of any such major events as a global flood.

Many creationists and creationist institutes have been founded to attempt furthering both "research" into the subject in favour of the idea, and to continue a basic propaganda mission in favour of converting people to that view. The few real research projects undertaken by these groups have completely invalidated their own initial ideas, notably for example the RATE project. Most other work consists of misinterpreting, misapplying and misunderstanding much of modern science, and ignoring basic techniques required to ensure validity and accuracy in the conclusions reached.

In effect - and this has been demonstrated in both legal and true scientific fields - creationism and its offshoots are simply attempts to insert religion into the secular world, almost invariably under direction from fundamentalist Christian sects.

Another answer:

Yes. It is quite clear from the well know evolutionist Michael Ruse who once famously stated "Evolution is a religion..." -that it is not just creationists who have a presupposition that drives their research. Everyone does. However, putting all philosophy aside it must be understood that real evidence exists in every field of science: Biology and Biochemistry, Genetics and Geology, Astronomy and Astrophysics as well as the Laws of Thermodynamics and (Biological) Information Theory (Dr Werner Gitt). This points to the fact that complex information, as well as the ability to read (decode) that information from the DNA (as well as the amazing DNA itself) requires intelligent input and points thus to the creator.

The fact is that reputable laboratories (not creationists) have repeatedly found Carbon 14 in diamonds, coal and petrified wood, which according to evolutionary dating, are way too old for their to be any left in the sample.

Consider also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."

"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).

"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).

2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.

"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).

Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.

"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).

"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).

Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.

b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.

c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.

d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.

e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there.