Creationism is built on the assumption that there is a God, and the assumption that this God is the God described in the Bible.
If you don't believe either of these things are true, then you cannot logically believe creation science.
However, if you believe that both these things are true, then creation science becomes a logical possibility (although not the only possibility).
Atheists do not believe there is a God. Therefore they cannot logically believe in creationism.
Hindus do not believe in the God of the Bible. Therefore they cannot logically believe in creationism. (They may formulate their own version of creationism, but it will not be the same as Christian creationism.)
Christians believe there is a God, and that this God is the God of the Bible. In the same way that secular scientists use the framework of naturalism (i.e. the idea that all things have been created by currently observable processes) to structure and inform their hypotheses, creation scientists use the framework of the Bible to structure and inform their hypotheses. In both cases, the hypotheses can be tested by observing available evidence.
In theory, it should be possible to perform creation science in a rigorous manner. However, for every rigorous creation scientist, there are probably 10 000 mis-informed bloggers spreading their own unsubstantiated theories. In addition, some popular creationists have used fairly weak arguments. This has led to the popular belief that all creationists are stupid or wrong.
I am personally a creationist, but I try to approach it in a logical fashion. I am very wary of popular creationists, and try to determine whether their arguments are logical before I accept them.
Your questions was "How do "creation science" proponents explain the lack of non-Abrahamic (non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim) scientists who buy into these "creation science" theories?"
In answer to this, I believe that most people do not realise that creationism can be logical. In addition, some current creation theories appear to be inconsistent with the evidence. For instance, there is no creationist consensus on the problem of distant starlight. Back in the 80s, it was popular to suggest that "God made the light so it looked like it came from billion year old stars." However, modern creationists have realised that this suggestion is problematic, because if this were true, it would mean there were millions of stars which we can see which never existed!! Most non-Christians would see this as instant proof that creation theory is wrong. I am happy to wait and see if they can come up with better theories, because creationism makes the Bible more internally consistent.
Note: I don't believe you have to be a creationist in order to be a Christian.