Not really, no.
What *is* interesting, however, is that they made their contributions to science by laying aside whatever creationist views they may have had, and looking for how things could occur naturally. Kepler, for example, didn't try to "explain" planetary motion by saying, "the planets move as they do because God wants them to" -- he found the natural law by which they abide, and worked out the natural consequences of that law as it influences the natural motions of orbiting bodies.
It's also interesting to note that Newton, for example, was both a brilliant scientist and a zealously religious man. The work he did in science and math was without peer when he analyzed things based on their natural behavior and/or pure math aspects, and have greatly benefited mankind -- what is less well known is that he also devoted at least as many years of his time studying the Bible and writing his views of religion, and also dabbled in the mysticism of alchemy. And yet, despite his long efforts in these supernatural and mystical endeavors, he produced no breakthroughs of benefit to mankind, no "science of God", no "religious technology", or anything of lasting or even notable value.
Which of the areas of Newton's interest, then, was the one which was most fruitful, and how much greater would have been his contribution to mankind if he had spent *less* time frittering around on the others?
Was Newton a boon to science *because* he was a creationist -- or in spite of it?