There is no ever growing support for Creationism among scientists. Even if you are scientifically illiterate, if you've followed the Dover trials, you can clearly see how much of a sham the whole ID movement is.
"Michael Behe served as an expert witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Under cross examination, he was obliged to admit:
* That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design's claims.
* That Behe's own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed.
* That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional material created for that purpose.
* That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God.
* That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743–1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.
* That the definition of "theory" supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”, was insufficiently broad to encompass ID. Use of his broader definition of the word would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory."
All 3 of the the Discovery Institute's "experts", the main think tank of ID, refused to support ID while under oath.
That tells you a lot about the intellectual honesty about these people who claim that there is "growing support" for ID among the scientific community.