You know, I can't really say it better than Dr. Jason Lisle did in his article titled "Can creationists be scientists?". So, I'll just quote a couple lines and then link to the full story, so please go visit and enjoy what he has to say.

Quote

It has been often said that "creationists cannot be real scientists."

Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is "the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things."

In addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

But is a belief in "particles-to-people" evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.

EndQuote

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0405lead.asp

Labels: Creation

---