First, the fact that the data collected does not disprove creationism means nothing. Take, for example, ghosts. Most scientists do not believe in ghosts not because there is evidence that contradicts the idea, but because there is no evidence to support it. Supporting evidence is the key. In science there is never absolute truth, we can never know a truth, only that there are thousands, may be even millions, of experiments that SUPPORT a certain claim. So, to the best of our knowledge given the umpteen amount of evidence we have gathered through unbiased experimentation, the theory of evolution is the most probable, i.e., the best idea we got.
Second, science is not a religion, it is not a belief. Let me illustrate what I mean by that statement. Indulge me with this example: imagine there is a person who lives on an island that believes and questions nothing. There are no beliefs, no preconceptions, they just live. This person is 100% free of bias. Then, for unbeknownst reasons (like I said bear with me), he/she becomes curious about the world. This person has all the necessary tools, etc., to answer their questions. This person would eventually come to the same conclusion that science would. Science, or the scientific method rather, is just the search for knowledge, the search for how and why, in an unbiased manner. In essence, it is the search for the closest possible thing we'll ever get to truth. But, that being said, we are not free of bias, we're human. There is the beauty of the scientific method; it is designed with that in mind. Hypotheses, or educated guesses, only become accepted theories after thousands of repeated studies and rigorous critical analyses by thousands of other scientists.
So, yes the world could have been created in 6 days, 6k years ago, but all of the evidence supports the contrary.
Here is the link to the debate, if you are curious http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI