Does staunch Creationist criticism assist scienific study?

I've noticed many Evolutionists complain that Creationists will not accept many scientific conclusions unless they are 'forced' to by insurmountable evidence.I find this curious, as it would seem such strong criticism would always help refine scientific theories. Would it be better if everyone accepted a theory (scientific or otherwise) once a certain point of evidence has been gathered, and it would never be questioned again? Why is the required level of evidence determined by Evolutionists better than the required level of evidence determined by Creationists? Does it matter if the motivation for setting that level is often religious?Perhaps some criticism is unscientific, and the Evolutionist tires of hearing such arguments. But surely it could not be said all Creationist arguments are unscientific. So then, why doesn't the Evolutionist welcome this criticism, that he may further advance his theory and be certain he has indeed found the truth. For if his theory is true, the eventual accumulation of evidence will reveal this truth to most of his opponents anyway. And if the theory is shown to be false under this criticism, then both Creationist and Evolutionist have gained new knowledge.

"Why? They begin with a conclusion. That one simply fact means that any contribution they might attempt to make is flawed."I'm not sure that this logically follows through. If I make a scientific proposition, but hold an underlying philosophical presupposition, does that necessarily mean my scientific proposition is flawed? What if the scientific proposition is unchanged by the philosophical presupposition?Example: If I argue that radiometric data is seriously flawed due to specific evidence I have collected, does it matter whether my motivation to research possible flaws in that original data is due to a religious belief that the earth is not as old a radiometric data implies, or a scientific belief that radiometric data is possibly flawed?

Perhaps I misunderstood the definition of this term "Biblical Creationist". Does it mean someone who specifically argues for Creation using only reasoning from the Bible? Or does it merely mean a Creationist who's base belief in Creationism is because of Biblical interpretation, but who argues against Evolution by scientic means? I assumed the later. I also didn't mean to imply anything by using the radiometric example (such as it being of supreme importance in determining the age of the earth). It was just the first thing that popped into my head for an example.
And thanks for your replies to this and my other posts.