I would also add that it is very speculative of Morris to claim what Kepler and Newton would believe in today's climate. Yes, they were Christians, but esp Newton, did not practice any sort of Christianity that evangelicals of today would recognize as doctrinally sound, and also was heavily involved in practices which, by evangelical standards, would be deemed akin to witchcraft. So to use him as a prime example of 'A founding scientist who was a creationist' is cherry picking from his life what you want to take and ignoring the rest. It is also likely, esp given what Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton thought about the natural world, that they would have let the science be science and theology be theology. As Galileo is credited with saying, 'The Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go.' He very well likely would have accepted the evidence for The Big Bang and evolution, while still maintaining his Catholicism. Therefore equating these early fathers of science with the modern creationist movement is speculative at best, and purposefully dishonest at worst.

I say this is a Christian and a scientist, but Henry Morris's stance could not be further from the philosophical emphasis and heart of what science is/does. The reason creationist scientists, and I do not care how credentialed they are, are not real scientists, is because they do not follow what science does, and that is allow evidence to inform their view of nature. They already have the answer they want, and try to make the data fit their preconceived view. As a result, their results will consistently be biased. Another flaw in creation science is that they enjoy pointing out issues current science has or can't explain, and try to find answers in those places that fit their narrative of the Bible. But this is very dangerous, as, if further work shows a formidable body of evidence contrary to their view, they must now explain away the new results instead of accept them. These points could not be better demonstrated than the Ham/Nye debate when a question was asked, 'what would change your mind?' And Han replied, 'Nothing.' This is as unscientific a mindset as there is. The scientific community would change their stance on any issue, rather quickly (on the order of years if not sooner), if breakthrough discoveries were made that challenged current notions. This has happened within the last hundred years a few times in my own field of physics/astronomy. Scientists such as Einstein disliked Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe and therefore solid evidence for The Big Bang (which hadn't been coined yet but the idea of an expanding universe was presented a couple of years before Hubble made his discovery). Einstein initially rejected the idea of expansion, but upon Hubble's discovery, apologized to the man who proposed it. This idea shook astronomy to its core, and caused firm evidence for the concept the universe had a beginning as opposed to being infinite. And the scientific community accepted the data and all subsequent cosmological data is consistent with an expanding universe. Creation scientists have no such mechanism by which data informs their stances such as this. Any data that refutes their position, time and resources are spent trying to find the flaws in the results. On the surface that is a good thing because that is what a good scientist does; critique and poke holes in each other's work. The base flaw with the creation stance is that, as more and more data disagree with their view, the harder they have to try and fit the ever vanishing areas of ignorance into their view. Creation science at its root suffers greatly from God of the Gaps syndrome. This is why Nye and others dismiss creation science as pseudoscience (which it is because it does not have the feature of evidence/worldview in that order, which, by definition science does. Instead it has, 'worldview/evidence,' which is a very dangerous position scientifically, and against the very ethic of science.