This gave me a good laugh!
It seems to be the concensus opinion that if someone is both a scientist and a creationist, their default basis for rejecting ToE must be religious, and can't be scientific, which I disagree with as being patently untrue.
Let me see if I can make this a little clearer to you.
If someone claims to be a "scientist", then they should be basing their opinions on the data. Can scientists disagree? Sure. Do scientists disagree about evolution? No. Why? Because the evidence for evolution is so overwhelmingly self aparent that anyone who disagrees with it is obviously disregarding such a mountainous pile of evidence as to prove themselves to be non-scientific in nature.
If that same person claims to be a Creationist, then they are admitting that they are accepting a single piece of data as more convincing that all other sources of data from all other sciences. As such, they are being inherently unscientific.
In other words - as soon as someone looks at the two different data groups, one containing millions and millions of independant sourced and collaberating facts and another one containing a single book which is in and of itself contradictory and says "Hey, that book is more convincing" we can pretty much rule them out as being a scientist.