is creationism a science?

It's being taught as a Science in many schools and universities. It's funny how people are coming to the realisation that the Big Bang and String Theory never overwrote Creationism.

Can you falsify the existence of a non-physical being with enough power to create an entire universe? No, you can't - not scientifically, anyway. If it can't be falsified, it isn't science, therefore ID isn't a science. What's more, it doesn't even follow the scientific method. You can't test creation, nor can you observe it, so, again, it isn't a science.

From Scientific American, "15 answers to creationist nonsense" "Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics. In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?) Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain. Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas. Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort."

Intelligent Design is a desperate attempt by the Christian Right to backpeddle and make their Holy Book match the growing body of science that refutes it's most basic assertions. It is only the latest example, the Christian churches have been fighting the growth of scientific knowledge for 500 years or more. Intelligent Design is neither intelligent, nor especially well-designed.

Yes it is a Pseudo-Science(Meaning false science)