In order for evidence to have any meaning, you need an objective baseline to compare it. This is the problem with creationism: there is no objective baseline for comparing ideas, hence no way of testing said ideas.
This is why there are so many contradictory versions of creationism out there.
Claims of "eyewitness accounts" is meaningless without an objective baseline to test such accounts. Humans are natural story-tellers. We love making stuff up. So unless you have a way to corroborate stories with independent, objective testing, then all the purported eyewitness accounts in the world don't mean anything.
Likewise, supernaturalism itself has no bounded constraints and therefore no way of objectively testing it. The only way to test is to set constraints.
Hence why scientific method using methodological naturalism which assumes an objective universe as its baseline. If you throw that out, then how are you going to test ideas about the world?