The sickle cell is a bad gene in a non-malarial climate, but in a malaria area it is a good gene. This is why Andrew and the other science terrorists should really study up on biology. They are full of noninformed opinions.
Good and bad are relative to the environment of the population in question.
The question being argued is whether genes that prevent an individual from breeding can nevertheless be beneficial to the population. The answer is yes.
Genes can be detrimental to the individual and beneficial to the species in the same environment.
"Good and bad are relative to the environment of the population in question."
This is somewhat true, but when talking about evolution in general I think it is useful to categorize such things relative to increases in complexity and enzyme specificity, for that is ultimately the proposition which evolutionists lay before everyone -- that our DNA became increasingly complex due to environmental factors only, over billions of years turning single-celled organisms into people.
Saying that sickle-cell anemia can be beneficial to a population is like saying that being burned beyond recognition can be beneficial. Sure, a terrorist might have some benefit from it by no longer being recognized at airports, but it hardly does anything to advance the idea of increasing complexity in DNA.