The issue here is evolution. Any version of creationism that denies evolution is incompatible with science.
It's not really incompatible... I imagine they have different beliefs about how the solar system formed, spanning from the YECs belief that a god placed the planets where they are today, th[r]ough the people that think a god just kicked off the Big Bang and nudged a few cosmological constants around...
My comment was two simple sentences, yet you managed to miss the point. It takes no position on people who accept the facts of evolution.
I suppose I have to point out that accepting the facts of evolution means all of those facts, not some bowdlerized version that denies the random aspects of evolution, or claims that evolution is responsible for small changes only, or excludes the descent of Man.
And I guess I also have to point out that my statement does not imply that a version of creationism that accepts the facts of evolution is necessarily compatible with science. It could be incompatible in other ways, which is highly likely when you introduce hypotheses lacking any evidence in support. As I wrote in the first third of my original response, the issue here is evolution, specifically.
With regard to your last paragraph, the route by which someone arrived at a belief is immaterial to the question of whether that belief is consistent with science.