I certainly hope Rufus' purpose in asking this question was not simply to slap some convenient label on me and thereby hope to avoid addressing my actual arguments. "Oh we don't have to pay any attention to him, he's a Young Earth Creationist!" As I said earlier, I do not propose any alternative "scientific" theory of Creation, because I believe Creation lies outside the bounds of scientific inquiry.
Anyway, I do take Genesis "literally", following the interpretation of the Fathers, although I think we should all remember that the words of Moses are still in some way a condescension to our limited understanding. But one of the purposes of my recent contributions to this thread has been to show that science itself also points to Creation (although not necessarily to the Six Days), for the simple reason that the organized complexity we see in living and non-living things, but especially in living things, is not spontaneously self-generating. If it were, evolutionism would be more plausible. You wouldn't need a Creator to account for order, because you could observe order making itself. As it happens, however, order does not make itself, but something, Someone, else has to make it.