Thing is, in my view, 'God' is never meant as any kind of scientific answer to anything. Its just a way to personify the philosophical idea of a 'first cause'. People believe that there must be a first cause, religious people believe it can't be something material, physical, because anything physical or material can't be pre-existing, by any logical reasoning. Asking what created God is as pointless as asking what created the 'first cause'.
The problem is when people take 'God' too literally and don't understand its just a personification. And religious people do that too, a lot; take things way too literally. Which is a mistake on their part. But when atheists take it literally too, they're committing the same error, in my view.
The problem is, most creationists don't present it as a philosophical idea of a first cause, they present it as "<insert name of holy book here> says so, therefore it's true"
Sounds like what most people do with science, too. People filter out what scientific evidence they don't like and only accept the evidence they do like. Which I see all the time. And that includes a lot of superstitious kind of beliefs, I see superstition passed off as science all the time.
There are two parts to major aspects to religious belief, anyway -- religious philosophy, and the stories, parables, etc., which are examples of the philosophy. The Bible is like literature, you have to separate the meaning from the details. And from what I've experienced, most people who are religious don't believe something just because their book says it, just like science evangelists don't believe something just because a textbook says it.
Completely false. Any real scientists out frauds within their ranks faster than any creationist will.