Creation can't be disproved

Claim

Astronomer Robert Jastrow said: "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."

The theological tenet of creation (that God(s) created the universe) cannot be disproven; It's unfalsifiable. That's part of what puts it outside of the realm of science. On the other hand, certain variants of creationism are more easily disproven.
The claimants seem to think that this is good for creationism. The opposite is the case - unfalsifiability makes it non-science.
Jastrow, like all scientists, sets high standards for what constitutes a "proof" (some even say that proofs don't exist outside of mathematics). In the very next paragraph Jastrow discusses the "reasons for thinking that its [life's] appearance on earthlike planets is, in fact, fairly commonplace" and notes that "These reasons do not constitute proof, but they are suggestive."
Any quasi-scientific implementation of creationism (e.g., young earth creationism or Intelligent Design) can, in principle, be disproven in those parts that seek to overlap with science, such as evolution or geology. In fact, many of the parts, if not all parts of young earth creationism and Intelligent Design that overlap with sciences such as evolution, geology and astronomy have been repeatedly disproven.
It also cannot be proven that the earth was not created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Any unfalsifiable claim about the supernatural can be made by anyone. Does that mean we have to take all of them seriously?

Shifting the Burden of Proof - (giving scientists the burden of proving creation wrong)
Argument from Ignorance - (no proof that creation is wrong, so it must be right)