It might. Those arguing for a young earth and a literal global flood about 4,350 years ago are doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and based on virtually no supporting evidence.
So far I haven't found the the evidence to be anywheres near overwhelming. I have noticed some things about people, however. There are some things in life which just aren't conclusive, and people will tend to address these things using their world-view as a starting point. You're probably aware that to me, evolutionists look to be ignoring the evidence, just like to you creationists appear to be ignoring evidence. Do you think that your world-view has no influence on your decision on whether a given fact is considered evidence or not? Do you think that you're more willing to buy into an idea that fits your worldview then one that doesn't fit your world view, all things being equal?
I think the answer can be found in the fact that the you're operating under a definition of science which categorically throws out as untrue any evidence which requires a non-natural process at any point in the past.
Such a operating mode works fine if it's certain that no supernatural thing ever happened. But as long as it is possible that there was an intelligent designer, then science dogmatically rules out a possible thing. Why can't science be more evidence-based rather then dogma based?
The problem with dogmatically ruling out a certain possibility is that if that certain possibility is true, then we will go very wrong trying to explain the observed phenomenon in all the wrong ways.
I have talked to enough people to know that creationists aren't the only religious ones. Lots of people who believe whole-heartedly in evolution take it purely on faith in things they haven't seen from people they don't know. I really appreciate your patience in helping me with all my questions!
Also, I'm on the lookout for a good family tree chart or whatever you call them, which I can study -- a good one that I can print out poster size and which has lots of information, rather then just a tiny one that shows a few skulls or whatever.
Back to whether my belief in the Bible would prevent me from using the scientific method, I'll agree that there are many little evidences or factettes which look to you to support evolution and look to me to support intelligent design. I can see how one's world-view could sway them one way or the other. But as far as the empirical sciences (like chemistry, experimental biology, etc.) would be O.K -- I could still use the scientific method on those without trouble, right?
One hypotheses I had as a teenager and have always been told was wrong still amuses me. I read (And demonstrated) that running an electrical current through oxygen produces ozone. I found by experimentation that by running an arc through rarefied air for a few minutes caused the arc to turn from its original maroon color to a pure beautiful sky-blue. I also had heard that the ozone layer blocked UV. And I had learned about luminescence in which one wavelength is absorbed the energy is re-radiated at a longer wavelength. I then hypothesized that the ozone layer absorbed the sun's UV, and re radiated it at that nice sky blue color. Oh, and I read that some company was testing the ozone layer thickness with a UV laser. Sadly I never did get around to testing the hypotheses. (At the time I didn't have the tools available.) And yes, many people have explained to me about light scattering :-). But I do now have a UV germ lamp, and I could probably figure how to build a spectrum graphing device to see what sort of wavelength pattern the blue sky has.
Thanks,
-Jesse