I've never found this to be the case. Every time I've investigated a creationist claim, I've found that where it conflicts with the Theory of Evolution (or other science, such as plate tectonics, cosmology, anthropology, etc.), there's a scientific error built into the creationist argument... or more often, several scientific errors.
That's true to the extent that we formulate hypotheses and then evaluate them against the evidence, but I think the key difference is that when we're talking about the origins of life, those who make their starting point the Bible are (IMO) usually reluctant to actually evaluate their claims, and unwilling to abandon them when they come up short against the evidence.
But surely you can acknowledge that the starting point for the Origin of the Species wasn't the Origin of the Species, right?
In fact, the Origin of the Species was the Bible. Darwin was studying to become a minister when he started collecting beetles in his spare time, and that start, in his desire to find the relationships between different species as part of "God's Creation", is what eventually wound up leading him to the Theory of Evolution.