Well, since it appears that we're no longer talking about pit bulls...
The basis of science is to make claims that are testable. That does not mean provable. It means falsifiable. When an experiment in science matches the hypothesis, it doesn't "prove" something, it indicates that the hypothesis appears to be correct within the limits of the experiment. If it does not match the hypothesis, then the theory behind the hypothesis is faulty and must be revised or discarded.
Science progresses when previous theories are shown to be incorrect or incomplete, and are revised or replaced. And experiments are also required to be reproduceable by anyone who wishes to test the theory and can recreate the experiment.
Religion does not leave any room for falsification whatsoever. You can't prove a religious belief false, that's how the belief system is structured. It may be possible for an actual divine act to occur and convince people that a belief is true, but it's unlikely to be replicatable at will by skeptics who did not witness the event, and some witnesses may choose to believe another explanation than divine intervention.
If we started finding fossils that suddenly changed from one type of animal to another in a single generation, or fossils where the exact same collection of species are stagnant all the way back to the beginning of time, or even where identical complex features suddenly appeared in many species separated by a wide distance simultaneously... or if we weren't able to reproduce selective breeding or specification in the lab... or if no bacteria ever developed resistance to antibiotics... or if genetic tests on existing fossils hadn't shown genetic drift tempered by survivability in an environment... and so on.
These types of observations would start to falsify the theory of evolution. The theory would have to change to accommodate them.
There is no way to falsify creationism. Any observation anyone makes can simply be explained by "God made it that way." There is no way to refute it with evidence - it is a belief-based system that depends solely on a supreme being instead of natural processes.
Thus, not science, no matter if you call it Creation Science or whatever. It's simply not science. At best, it's junk science that looks specifically for things within science to prove a belief. That's simply not how science works.
Science is the eternal curious ape asking "why's that, then?". As soon as you put in "irreducible complexity" you've closed off science.
Religion has been cut back further and further thanks to science, from being the reason why lions eat people, lightning strikes and illness happens. Now we know that lions are independent creatures that eat meat, lightning strikes are caused by electrical buildup in the clouds and that illnesses are caused by little organisms. Every time science answers a question "why's that, then?" god gets a little slimmer.
Religion is used to fervently oppose science by those uneducated masses who understand neither their own religion or science. This is where those who are pro-science and anti-religion get their frustration with religion from. The extreme distrust of intellectualism throughout the US in particular is a major block in the advancement of society on a wide variety of fronts, and most often that distrust is manufactured as a form of religious views attacking scientific foundations and research.
It's someone saying, "I don't like they way you live your life. I don't like the way you talk about things or think about things, and I feel threatened by the decisions you make, so I'm going to get together with my like-minded friends and talk about how you're a horrible and stupid person."
It comes from both camps, science and religion. Sometimes it's because the one side is genuinely threatening to the other, but often enough, I think it's just because of the nice little ego boost that comes from calling someone else stupid and/or wrong. It's also very upsetting for many people to admit that they might not understand something. For someone to say something you don't understand, to admit that you don't understand, and then to admit that they might not be wrong - for many people that is in itself a terrifying threat. To admit you might be wrong and someone else might be right. Oh, the horror.
The real deal is that the scientific method can never really disprove the existence of God, so there can be no genuine conflict between science and the belief in God. Again, those who think there is a genuine conflict between the two, really and truly understand neither. Oddly enough, none of the major religions actually command you to be petty and ignorant and to disbelieve your experience. All the pettiness on both sides are just people being petty. There is no battle between God and science.
