It's because science works. It's logical, explains an incredible amount, and fascinates us because of the implications. You seem to forget, NTs love
implications, because it draws more questions to ask, more challenges to hurdle, more plans to make, and hones processes better than anything else. Science is incredible because it's so consistent, too, and yet is completely variable, given the addition of new data.
That doesn't mean we aren't going to have some out-there hypotheses as well. For one, my thoughts are that if there is a god, its will represents itself through the manifestation of probability in this universe. As of now, that is a completely unfalsifiable statement, unscientific, and likely untrue. That being said, it is an idea that logically makes sense (along with if there were a deity, he'd speak in mathematics), interesting to bandy about, but in no way evident enough to make a declaration about. It's my own personal hunch, and that's all there is to it. Humans are subjective, you know.
Muslims have a pretty good claim for originating many scientific endeavors - they did practically preserve ancient knowledge (along with inventing algebra, chemistry, modern astronomy and our current place-value number system) for a good 700 years, while Europe was too busy deciding whether the world was going to end tomorrow, if boiling water or trials by fire were better means of determining innocence or guilt, or whether converted Jews were ok, or still had to be executed.
I agree that creationists can be very rational. They're masters of rationalization. The problem is that their rationalizations sever in the face of the sharp blade of empiricism. You must accept their premises (God exists, the world is too complex to be explained by natural processes) in order for the rationale to work, and none of these premises are falsifiable, and consequently non-empirical... which is why they're not scientific. Consequently, with Occam's razor in mind (as you mentioned before), what's the more plausible scenario - that an unobservable, metaphysical (and we can't even agree on that) being created the universe for reasons we can't agree upon, and created all this false data to obscure its existence? Or perhaps its that since the data shows that the universe has been around a long time, and that we can identify processes and methods of genetic code and phenotypes varying from generation to generation, particularly in response to environmental stimuli, that we should build our model for understanding the universe on that data? Particularly when that approach has made predictions that have turned out to be true many times in the past?
The choice seems fairly obvious to me.