Can you be a scientist and a creationist?

Atheist's response to my anti-Darwinist post against Bill Nye the "science" guy:
"Read the article. The article was mostly rubbish. Nye got a few Bible facts wrong, but after that the article fell to bits with its own ignorant spew. hell, it had Morris and Gish as prominent scientists.The general effect was to leave Nye unscarred and to leave the author of the article looking like a goose."

Hoss's response:
"A "few Bible facts wrong"? The bird said that the Bible had been translated into English countless times in the past 5,000 years. There are kids that know English has not been around for 5,000 years. Where did it have Morris and Gish as "prominent scientist"? They were in the list, but so were a lot of other people. But, I suppose Dr. Gish could be considered a prominent scientist, since he had a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Berkeley."

Atheist's response:
"Having a Phd doesn't make you prominent. But you are right- it didn't say "prominent". Not that it matters. Neither Gish nor Morris were scientists once they gave up real science and began promoting debunked and disproven nonsense. As for the bit about English- that's just an obvious slip."

Hoss's response:
"Thanks for the reply. I think it depends on your definition of prominent. The word can mean 'well known' or it can mean 'important'. Gish and Morris were both well known, not because they were creationists, but because they were scientists with PhDs that believed and promoted creation. You say "Gish nor Morris were scientists once they gave up real science", but it is my understanding that they were always creationists. I don't think they ever "gave up" evolution. You seem to be indicating that only people who believe in macro-evolution are scientists (perhaps I am misunderstanding you). Wouldn't that mean that there were no scientists before 1859 when Darwin published his book? Most American medical doctors are not evolutionists. As seen in the blog post, world renown neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is a staunch creationist that does not believe in macro-evolution. Nobody could question his medical science expertise and experience. I would also like to add the fact that Charles Darwin is often inaccurately credited with the discovery of natural selection, but several people already had wrote about it before him. One of which was a creationist named Edward Blyth (1810-1873) who was a zoologist. He is actually someone that helped Charles Darwin learn more about selection. Darwin wrote on pg. 18 of the Origin of Species, "Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one, "

I haven't read much of Morris or Gish, but what is the "debunked and disproven nonsense" that they promoted? (were you just referring to creationism as a whole or were you referring to specific teachings of theirs?)"

Atheist's response:
"Any scientist that promotes a disproven model of science- whether ot is creationism or astrology or homeopathy has forsaken their status. The usual result is to be ostracised. The primary claims of creationism are indeed disproven. 1) Young Earth- disproven. 2) Special Creation- disproven 3) World Wide Flood- disproven."

Hoss's response:
"I don't see how someone's religious beliefs could negate their scientific education and experience unless it affected how they perform the needful tests/observations in their field. Did Morris and Gish's creation beliefs have a negative impact on their hydraulic engineering and biochemistry work? I don't think so. Did Dr. Carson's creationist beliefs have negative affects on his abilities to perform surgeries? I don't think so. Raymond Damadian's creationist beliefs did not stop him from inventing the MRI scanner either. I don't see how a person's belief about origins affects their scientific operating skills. (but I'm not a scientist)"

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell