That's debatable. Disagreeing with your interpretation of "what [God] says" is not necessarily the same as disagreeing with God himself. Maybe you're the one who disagrees with God, whether you realize it or not.
Besides, even (if not especially) on the most straightforward and literal reading of scripture, it's seemingly impossible to find a antievolutionary creationist who doesn't also adopt and advocate multiple disagreements with "what God says".
For example the Bible gives zero indication that Noah's flood had any geological (as opposed to geographical) significance. You may so suppose, based on (what is strictly in relation to the Bible) an entirely circumstantial case, but it's not based on any Biblical affirmation.
For instance there's nothing in there, not a single word, claiming, or entailing the claim, that vast quantities of sedimentary strata, and the fossils they contain, were deposited by Noah's flood.
In fact there's some evidence to the contrary, such as a few geographical place names (e.g. the Euphrates, IIRC) being used both before and after the flood. This suggests a tranquil flood, that wouldn't wipe out and utterly remake such features as rivers, mountains and the like. But you'll look in vain for tranquil flood theorists out there. Young earth creationists to a man (they're almost all men, btw) propose a Noachian deluge that, unbeknownst to the Bible, did massive amounts of geological work. Creationists who accept an ancient earth tend to accept a regional flood, or some other scheme.
Nor is this the only example. The Biblical language strongly suggests, for instance, that the "firmament" or "expanse" (Hebrew "raqia") that divides the "waters above" from the "waters below," generally the realm of earth from that of heaven, was indeed firm, hard like a mirror of beaten metal, for instance, birds brush their wings against it, etc. (I can gather up the verses for you if you require.)
But none of this Biblical language ("what God says") stops the majority of creationists from gratuitously and utterly unbiblically proposing that the raqia was something airy like water vapor in the atmosphere, or more commonly a specific layer of water or water vapor high in the atmosphere. Again this is mostly young earth creationists. (Others just ignore the raqia altogether.)
There are few (e.g. dinosaur tracks = "manprint" nutter Carl Baugh) who propose that the raqia was made of ice, and therefore solid. But even they, and other antievolutionary creationists, all join the vapor canopy theorists in a further absolutely unbiblical assumption: That the canopy was destroyed and afterward ceased to exist in conjunction with Noah's flood.
Oh, sure, the Bible doesn't explicitly deny that the raqia suddenly ceased to exist then (or at any other time). But again there's absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest that it did, and plenty to suggest otherwise. All the Bible says touching in any way on the firmament in relation to the flood is that "the windows of heaven were opened" (or words to that effect, I'm not looking up verses just now). That's it! At most this suggests the raqia was NOT destroyed, otherwise why suggest that "windows" were opened up in it to allow the "waters above" to pass through without destroying it? Or the windows of heaven could just be a poetic allusion to simple (if extraordinarily voluminous) rain.
I've studied the antievolution movement fairly extensively. Fact is there is not a single elaboration of antievolutionary creationism that doesn't extensively substitute the "opinions of men" for the actual Word of God (if the Bible is to be taken as such) and doesn't in the process extensively contradict the most simple and straightforward reading of scripture. It just isn't possible to make a fulsome elaboration (that anyone could pretend to believe) without doing so.