There can be many interpretations of scientific evidence. Of those interpretations, only some of them will be scientific explanations. Of the scientific explanations, only some of them will be consistent with the evidence.
Other posters have done a wonderful job of describing what is and isn't scientific, and I really only have one thing to add which is the concept of falsification. If we are talking about scientific explanations, then they need to describe what type of evidence would disprove their explanation. That is on of the main things that AiG lacks, and they even admit as much in their statement of faith:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
If nothing I can show you will ever falsify your interpretation then you don't have a scientific explanation. What you have is a dogmatic religious belief, at least in the case of AiG. You can't have any credibility when any evidence, no matter what it is, will be viewed as supporting your view. It's like a loving mother who will claim that her son is innocent no matter what evidence is presented in trial. I have asked many creationists questions about how creationism is falsifiable, and they are never really able to answer them. For example, what features would a fossil need in order for them to accept it as evidence for human evolution? What shared genetic features would falsify creationism? What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a young earth or a recent global flood? They can't answer those questions because no amount of evidence will change their mind.
What I find most intriguing is what the AiG approach to the debate really says about how they view the world. AiG wants so badly to have a supported scientific explanation, and yet they vehemently speak out against science all of the time. Their own actions seem to indicate that they view scientific explanations as being superior to religious beliefs because they try to argue that evolution isn't scientific while creationism is scientific. They are like a school boy who has been spurned by a girl, and their reaction is to both attack the girl and still try to win her favor.