Without a model, all that is left for the scientist to do is to wander around, willy-nilly, and gather data. "Science" in such a world would look something like the contents of my father's garage -- a bunch of stuff accumulated over the years, of value to no one. But with a model in mind (which must be consistent with the already-gathered evidence), the scientist knows what newly-discovered evidence means. It either supports the theory, or it contradicts the theory. Either way, there is meaning to the scientist's work.
I think this is precisely what "RightWingProfessor" had in mind when he stated in several threads that biology, in the absence of a central organizing principle such as the Theory of Evolution, amounts to not much more than an exaggereated version of bird-watching: "Hey! look; it's one of those!" And "Ooooo; there's one of them...." This is, as you have correctly characterized it, the intellectual equivalent to cataloging the junk you collect in the garage or attic.