The scientific method is that you make a hypothesis with falsifiable predictions, and then other set out to test these predictions. Biology isn't my subject, but standard cosmology may be subject to variations of detail (like whether there is dark matter or not), and the idea that the universe is only 6000 years old if falsiifed by numerous experimental observations, ages of the stars, redshifts of the galaxies, radioactive decay, plate tectonics, a very long list. Its a non-starter. I also don't see why people would need it. Even the theology is pretty dodgy.

Evolution, maybe modified by punctuated equilibrium is established.

Big bang cosmology, maybe with dark matter, maybe with out, is established.

Stellar nucleosynthesis, and the timescales involved in that, is established.

Plate tectonics, and the age of the Earth (to with maybe 10% accuracy) is established.

And I havn't even seen that your stated creationist scientists have argued against any of these things, at least not in anything indexed by the NASA Astrophysics Database. And I did look.