Oh yeah. So you list them to show how many good scientists are creationists. Then when it's pointed out that in fact they're a rather mediocre lot, you say that just goes to show how many good creationist scientists are persecuted by the evil scientific establishment so they look mediocre. Petitio praecipi, I think they call it.
Gish's scientific career focussed on protein chemistry. You can publish out that wazoo in that field without referrring to the origin of life. He didn't publish out the wazoo; he had 30 or so papers over a 20 year period, which ain't going to put you on the road to Stockholm. Most of the others never have to refer to creation or evolution in their fields. Find another excuse.
And while you're at it, show me one example of a paper that was rejected solely because it takes a creationist stance. Full details, including the verbatim editorial decision, please. I don't dispute it might happen, but I sure won't take it on faith.
Really. Mediocre?
How about Louis Pasteur? Was he a "mediocre" scientist? He was a Creationist believing Christian scientist. Your need to generalize in an attempt to make your point really only shows that you haven't one.
A common penchant among professors. Deride and ridicule that which you can't intelligently debate or support with educated fact.