> In those two sentences you are clearly saying that those who believe a Creator brought about "all this" cannot be practitioners of good science.
ERRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing.
A person can quite easily be both a "good Christian" and a "good scientist." Can quite easily believe that a Creator brought about "all this," through natural forces including evolution.
A Creationist can even be a good scientist. Just not in the field of biology and paleontology, of course, just as an astrologer might make a fantastic linguist, but a lousy astrophysicist.
But Creationism, like astrology, is bunk, and will always be bunk. It is not only not supported by the evidence, it is *contradicted* by the evidence.
You have forgotten the fundamental rule of debate with creationists: creationists define all of the terms. They define what is meant by "Christian", they define what is meant by "science", they define what is meant by "evolution", and you are not allowed to challenge them on any of these definitions. Moreover, they do not have to tell you what these definitions are until they want to beat you over the head with them, and they are allowed to change the definitions (without warning) at will.