Creation Muesum

[RoadRunner79]

If interested you may want to check out Reasons to Believe.  I also like the Uncommon Descent Blog (some may consider this creationist, some may not).  Both look to science for explanation quite a bit.  I don't really use AIG, and agree with you in that case quite a bit, although I would not categorically label everything there as pseudo science.

Same shit, different salad. Starting out with an unassailable conclusion. This, by definition, right of the bat, cannot be science:

Scripture
We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses.

Creation
We believe that the physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God. It declares God's existence and gives a trustworthy revelation of God's character and purpose. In Scripture, God declares that through His creation all humanity recognizes His existence, power, glory, and wisdom. An honest study of nature - its physical, biological, and social aspects - can prove useful in a person's search for truth. Properly understood, God's Word (Scripture) and God's world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other. (bold mine)
http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission

RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature.

They do say, that their primary mission is to spread the Gospel, but they also say that they have a high view of science; which I believe is demonstrated.  Their team consist of an Dr. Hugh Ross (astronomer), Dr. Fuzule Rana (Bio-Chemist), Ken Samples (philosopher), and Dr. Jeff Zweerink (astrophysicist).  The primary reason for the organization is not science and not everything there qualifies as such, but they do utilize science which supports the creation account, and do so without denying evidence against them.
It does appear that by the part that you put in bold, that we are regressing; back away from science that supports creation, to simply ruling it out by definition.  What issue do you take with believing and attempting to show that God's word and God's work are not contradictory?  Are you denying any science which may point to the account of creation?