Hi BigMike,
A hearty welcome. I hope you enjoy this group as much as I do.
First, let me repeat your question in different words to see if you think I understand it. You may have asked "Do individuals who believe in God the Creator have any right to debate in a scientific forum."
Some to most of the evolutionists here use "Rule 1" to automatically exclude any statement that includes "the supernatural". If a statement can pass rule 1 then it will surely be eliminated by "Rule 2" which requires the statement to take into account "the whole body of evidence".
And because any scientific theory must be "falsifiable" no theory involving the supernatural can be introduced (I can't remember if falsifiable has it's own rule )
The above rules are part of a post to me by a member called quetzal. Lest I sound like a whiner, I actually agree with these rules in a scientific debate.
At least three questions come to me out of the rules. First, is tToE scientific. Second, since it is being used by many to "refute" the existence of the supernatural should not the supernatural be considered in those cases. Finally, must the whole body of evidence be considered or just those facts that refute evolution?
Let me clarify by saying that I have complete respect for those who simply do not believe in God but I have no respect for those who know better and are simply using Evolutionism as a cover - and I do not decide who is in which group and I care only because a bad attitude gives a bad taste to the debates. I do not like a bad attitude from Creationists, either and have told at least one so.
Enough "background" and to my response to your question. Creationism in its pure form uses the seemingly few facts that refute Evolution. Since in its pure form it does not need to include the supernatural by reference, it is as valid a science as Evolutionism. In both cases the -ism is a respectful form.
That there appears to be many versions of both tToE and tToC confuses the issue but the individuals I have debated seem content with Natural Selection. I have not yet debated a Creationist but plan to when I see bad logic there not pointed out by someone else (Evolutionists usually jump right on it). Creationists, I believe, have no general plan other than to hold, at least loosley, to Genesis 1 and 2, and tightly to the creation of Adam and Eve. The glue for Evolutionists seems to be the "apparent common ancestor".
In summary, I assert that Creationism can be as scientific as Evolutionism and so Creationists have a right to debate in a forum related to EvC.
Very best regards,
Bob, Alice, and Eve