You are very wrong.
For one example, a physician who dogmatically didn't believe in evolution would reject the well-established doctrine that overprescribing antibiotics causes more harm than good in the long run, because the pathogens EVOLVE resistance to the antibiotics (and evolve faster when faced with antibiotics more often). This would make for a BAD physician, who would cause harm.
For an extremely specific example:
From http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/genesis.htmAnother big consideration is covered from various angles in Welcome to the Ghetto (of Scientific Illiteracy) . It raises several concerns, including the one I was going to bring up -- a scientist of any sort, including a physician, who is capable of rejecting something as well-established as evolution, purely on dogmatically religious grounds, is capable of also refusing to accept WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE from science. There's no telling what scientific principles he is going to reject as being "incompatible" with his "if I think it contradicts my religious belief, it will be rejected" filter -- or what sorts of supernatural beliefs he will embrace. As an excerpt from the essay puts it:Finally, a (true) horror story. A few years ago there was a little girl, known to the concerned public as "Baby Fae," who needed a heart transplant. Human donors are hard to find, especially for infants, so a daring surgeon convinced the parents to let him implant a baboon's heart.
A hopeful world held its breath, while skeptical biologists scratched their heads (a baboon's heart?), but everyone hoped for the best. Sadly, Baby Fae died after a few weeks. Among the contributing factors may have been that her immune system had recognized the heart as something foreign, and attacked it. After the sensational news stories had died down, it was reported that a biologist asked the surgeon why he had chosen a baboon donor, which is a much more distant relative of ours (in evolutionary terms) than a chimpanzee, which is our closest relative (DNA ~99% identical). Wouldn't there have been less danger of rejection with a heart from a closer relative? The surgeon's answer: he hadn't even taken that into consideration, because he didn't believe in evolution! To him, no creatures were related to each other, since they had all been created at once, in their present forms.*
Maybe a chimpanzee's heart wouldn't have saved Baby Fae either, but the chances might have been better. It's hard to find words to describe a doctor who would do this kind of experiment on a child, then later reveal that his decisions were based on a complete denial of the best modern science. I hope you are never faced with a life-or-death decision between what science says the world is like, and what you think it is like. But scientific progress is unstoppable, and all modern life science centers around the knowledge of the evolutionary genesis and relationships of living things. And there's no sign of that changing anytime soon.
*Response from a gentleman researching this and other creationist craziness for a dissertation:
I tracked this down, to a radio interview given by Bailey to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program "Health Report," hosted by Norman Swan, aired June 3, 1985. I have obtained a copy of the tape. It's true, Bailey says exactly that the concept of homology did not play a role in the selection process of donor species, but it was a case of availability and size. HLA testing was done, and the closest match was used. However, baboons have type A blood, while Baby Fae was type O. The blood antigens caused a severe rejection of not only the heart graft, but also damage to liver and other organs. The doctors thought that blood type immune response would not be sufficiently developed in a neonate to make a difference. Bailey says he's a fundamentalist, he can buy microevolution, but that millions of years of separation of species boggles his mind. Homology of this kind did not count at all!
Trained to reject and mock intellectualism and rationality, and accept supernatural and miraculous events unquestioningly, a great many will go on to accept uncritically all sorts of things that the creationists did not have in mind when they recruited the newcomers. After all, if the world does work mainly by miracle and magic, then maybe there's more than the one kind of magic. Once the anti-scientific mindset is established, it's not hard at all to start believing in lucky charms, numerology, psychic powers, communication with the dead, UFO abductions, ad nauseum. I know personally a fundamentalist-creationist pastor who sees nothing whatever amiss in consulting "moon signs" before making plans and decisions. And we can recall a recent President who at least gave lip-service to creationism--while his wife arranged his appointments on the advice of an astrologer.