Mayomick, there is a world of difference between a scientist who believes in creationism and a "creationist scientist". I play the harmonica and I am a scientist, but I would not characterise myself as a "harmonicist scientist". There are plenty of scientists who believe in God (mistakenly in my opinion, of course), and even creationism, but they are still perfectly good scientists. It's only when religion attempts to collide with science (and it's always that way round) that things start to cloud over. To me, a "creationist scientist" would be someone who purports to use scientific methods to demonstrate that God created the world, etc. A classic oxymoron then (and a moron to boot). Naturally, before Darwin there would be plenty of scientists pontificating about creation, but be assured that they were never employing proper scientific process in so doing. Even Newton believed in alchemy, you know! Things move on. Eminent scientists are eminent because of their accomplishments in scientific endeavours. As soon as they start spouting about religion they are on exactly the same the same plane as the the rest of us hairy-arses.