[amotoustict]

Creationism may seem daft but it is a theory like everything else.

Here's a nice description of the real meaning of the word Theory as used in science (from Wiki):

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

So, I disagree. Creationism is not supported by objective, measurable evidence and is therefore not a theory. Neither is it's faintly cloaked sibling, Intelligent Design. They are beliefs, something very different and not at all related to accepted definitions of hypothesis or theory. Everyone (at least, here in the US) has the right to believe, but that does not make the belief a credible alternative to real science.