That's simply not true. Creationism is incompatible with pretty much all of science. For example, in Genesis, both light and plants came before the sun....
There are two creation stories in genesis. one in ch1 and a different one in ch2. Neither were written to be scientific texts or history books - they have a different literary genre to that. Note that the chapter and verses of the bible were inserted at a MUCH later date and can be a bit random to modern eyes, this is a case in point.
Genesis 1 probably dates from after the Babylonian exile (570 + BCE) and was a hymn to creation, probably sung in the Temple. there is a chorus "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." etc. It's a song essentially. The order of 'creation' is pretty interesting - and the human being is presented as being the last thing created. This song finishes at the beginning of what is now ch2
"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."
Then the next creation story starts - this was probably written before the hymn and is of a different literary form - it's a myth not a song.
Genesis 2 (The good old Adam and Eve story) starts at Ch 2verse 4
"4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
The actual Hebrew is best translated as "human from the humus" or "earthling from the earth" as it's a play on words - "adam from adama"
Most scholars agree that while Gen 1 is a temple hymn to the glory of creation, Gen 2 is a myth written to tackle the question "why are there two sexes?". The story goes on say that god made all sorts of beasts to keep adam company but none did the trick, so god took a rib (the Hebrew implies a whole side, like a rib of beef) and created male and female - ish and ishah (in Hebrew) In the Jewish tradition this is always seen as God split the human, Adam, into two types of being
"The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." They were trying to make sense of why there were two sexes who were attracted to each other and told a story about the two originally being one. Thus the notion of the 'other half'.
The reason why I, as a scientist doing science A levels, became fascinated by religion in my teens is because we had a bloody good RE teacher who made me realise that religion is about people trying to make sense of their world - and they could only do using the language and concepts available to them.
Having a religious faith does not mean a person believes any of those stories are supposed to be history! Clearly some people do (yes America I am looking at you) but I would be shocked to meet a UK scientist, who was a person of faith, who took any scripture literally. Seriously. people are knocking down straw men here.