It does fulfil these criteria, certainly as well as does evolutionism. The first two conditions require only law-likeness and explanatory ability. These characterize creationism as much as evolutionism. The real question is not whether scientific creationism is scientific but whether the existing evidence provides stronger arguments for evolutionary theory than for creationism. To make a scientific decision, the two theories should be tested against each other.
Fossils are the key, specifically the presence or absence of 'missing links'.
Their non-existence is probably decisive because the evolutionary model would require an inconceivably great number of them. One of the main features commending the evolution theory is that it is seen as being capable of giving a complete explanation of the world in a way that creationism cannot. After the Big Bang, the evolution to modern humans is seen as a continuous natural process, at no point requiring the intervention of the supernatural. Although natural causes clearly cannot explain the origin of the universe, it is thought that they can explain such events as the origin of life and its subdivision into major forms. But this view cannot be sustained.