I think that a science background is certainly a benefit to those who would argue against or for a position in the evolution/creationism debate. But I think also that many really good and important contributions are made by "educated amateurs" (this is not an insult, it is a term we use in biology for people like bird watchers who may have never set foot in college, or have advanced degrees in architecture, but who are recognized as experts in the local bird fauna because of experience). I think there are a great many people who may have no formal education in science who have followed these topics and really make this forum better for their insights.
On the other hand this is not a free-ride to say anything you want. I think it is important to think carefully about what you claim. It appears to me that illogical claims on both creo and evo sides are smacked down pretty well around here, and that is a good thing. There is alot of calling for references for statements. I think this acts to our benefit as a mini peer-review, forcing all of us (or at least those of us really interested in truth) to search for sources and admit when we rely on half-remembered readings from long past (I do this often, relying on things I think are true but cannot find the ref until pushed).
As for the experience in science portion of the OP, I have an MS in crustacean reproductive biology, am finishing a PhD in shrimp trophic ecology, and currently a professor (in the American sense) of invertebrate zoology. But I learn constantly from all of the people here at EVC.
Anyway, my 2-cents worth.
Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
™ Version 4.2
