It's not that they reject the scientific method; it's that they reject specific findings.
It's not specific scientific findings; in order to reject the cosmological and terrestrial sciences' determination of the age of the Earth and instead believe in an age with no scientific evidence, you have to reject the methods which were used and deem the non-evidence methods more valid.
We're talking about principles which are core to chemistry, physics, cosmology, geology, archaeology, biology, and all other fields which derive from these fields (including anthropology, psychology, ecology, meteorology, etc.). To reject a scientific finding based on method is one thing, but to reject a finding which has been studied in multiple field--each via multiple methods--and when the methods used are so fundamental to most other major discoveries in those fields, it is pretty safe to say that one is rejecting scienctific finding.
Certainly not all
of science, but enough of science that it is no longer a "specific" result, as though the rejection were a singular, minor, and rational incident.