No, Pete...they simply do NOT "do the same thing". They begin (at least the intelligent ones) by evaluating real *scientific* data/evidence and making judgments that seem to follow FROM the evidence....and being willing to change their opinions IF better real data comes in.
I suppose you will claim that creationists do something similar, but there are stark differences between what each side considers to BE evidence. Fossils, dated by radioactive carbon decay and other strict geological rules is one type, whereas 'sacred' texts in obscure languages, with no identifiable author, passed down for several thousand years on tattered manuscripts and enduring variable translations and editing by theologians with a vested interest in the wording....are another type of 'data'.
   You simply cannot assume that 'data' produced by MEN, based on stories, hearsay and cultural attitudes can have the same status as 'neutral' data found in nature! The stories in the Bible probably reflect some real historical events and people (I have no doubt that they do), but even granting that there were historical people such as Lot, Moses, Abraham, Peter, Joseph....and Jesus... there is no way of testing and metaphysical/religious claims about them. That is why we say 'belief' when talking about religious claims.
People 'believe' in God, the virgin birth, transubstantiation, miraculous 'healing', world-wide floods, visitations by angels...and a host of other things.-- and most of the major stories about those events and people are said to have occurred several thousand years ago...when record keeping was not well developed.
I even understand how & why people would tell and pass on stories which seemed inspirational and which seemed to fill needs and answer thorny questions about 'life'. (We STILL tell kids stories about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus...and even the Tooth Fairy...and the kids believe them.. but we don't insist that the retain that belief as adults, or that they base their life on them.)


So.... my "specific objections" to creationist arguments is as I have said... that they use a slippery and flawed idea of what data & evidence really are.