I think that this whole argument is ultimately pointless - because it started over an issue that did not exist except in the minds of some (whether or not Scientists have the right to be Creationists). It can't be resolved, because the issue is not being discussed.
Do scientists have the right to be creationists? The general consensus of the scientific community is "No!" Because the whole concept of a personal God is so repugnant to most of the set that believes that the Universe, whether God made it or no, is operating by laws that can be comprehended and understood - laws which are not set aside at the whim of some great Beard in the Sky.
Do creationists have the right to be Scientists? They do their damndest not to be - with their prevarications, lies, and half-truths - all of which revolve around a very narrow interpretation of Genesis, written 3500 years ago in the middle of the desert by a guy who was trying to build a national identity out of a group of escaped Egyptian slaves.
Not that science, with Rem's vaunted Internet, is so great. If it is, then why can't I download an illegal copy of Eminem's latest hit? Huh? Answer me, medicine man! What the hell is wrong with morpheus?
Name one disease that religion has cured. One toilet it got to flush. Name one instance when, provably, religion did anything except wake me up early on Sunday.
Neither side can give me the answers I truly need. Only sweet alcohol can do that...
CZAR