Creationism doesn't have to prove or disprove anything, this is true.
Creationism couldn't if it wanted to do so prove or disprove anything, this is also true. This is because creationism is a myth, invented by one or more primitives who had just recently acquired speech, and makes no testable references to the real, objectively knowable world. As such, it is scientifically irrelevant because it can only be perceived within the imagination of the faithful, who disagree even amongst themselves about its "true meaning".
Whether creationism has been around as long as documentation goes back depends what you mean by documentation. The oldest human fossil remains so far discovered are at least several hundred times older than the origin of the Hebrew culture, which to me is documentation that the human species drastically predates the Hebrew myth of creationism. But assuming you mean "documentation" recorded by human, then rather than supporting the validity of the creation myth, creationism's age suggests that it was devised as an insufficient explanation of simple qustions that naturally curious primitive homo sapiens would certainly have asked, but lacked the information and intellectual competence to answer correctly. It didn't kill them because questions about their present context were crucial to their survival, not questions about their origins. Nevertheless, the ancient Hebrews, like the Christists that followed them, were incorrect.
Science should never bother to disprove creationism any more than it should bother to disprove Harry Potter, Homer's Odyssey, or Star Wars. Novels, whatever their age, are all allegorical to reality, and may say something important about the authors' personalities or even human character in general, but never about the physical structure or development of the cosmos. That is exclusively the purview of science.
To not believe that we are here for a reason, to believe in being nothing more than a accident (sic), and that everything you are will be gone when you die, is not a logical consequence of evolutionary theory. Confidence in my own mind and my ability to deal with the world rationally and efficaciously are results of my allegiance to fact, aka honesty. As a result of believing evolution specifically, I am proud of my fitness to survive, and especially of the single trait that allowed my distant ancestors to survive among lions, tigers, bears and other ferocious predators without the speed of a gazelle or the thick hide of a rhinocerous: my intelligence. That ability now enables me to see through the facade of the final remaining threat to the human species: atavism. In Don Quixote, the myth of Atlantis, and surely many other fairy tales in a variety of cultures, there is an unexplained "nostalgia" for better days, although what historically preceded was essentially deeper primitivism and more danger. What the authors really mean is that in their own personal childhoods, survial was provided to them by their parents without any effort on their own parts. As adults, we must work to satisfy our self-interest as individuals, with no right or claim to the effort of any other person. For people of sub-normal intelligence, this is probably frightening. Every religious impulse is a simplistic, emotional but irrational desire to have the same ease in adulthood as in childhood, provided by a superior being. That is the universal source of the god hypothesis, and the explanation for its global similarities, despite the variety of names and superficial characteristics.
It is the statistical over-representation in modern society of thoughtless mystics that makes me lonely, not my beliefs that A is A and that reality is comprehensible. My ancestors should never have taught yours how to harness fire.