I think that not accepting evolution is incompatible with being a biologist, if nothing else, because it evolution is fundamental to biology. It is our first principles, our Newton’s laws of motion. It’s like being a physicist who doesn’t accept general relativity or a chemist who doesn’t believe in the Schrödinger equation.
Can you do good science without accepting evolution? Sure. You can be a great chemist or physicist or whathaveyou, just not a good biologist, because I don’t think someone who does biology without accepting evolution has good scientific judgement.
Medicine is a different thing, because doctors really don’t need to understand evolution to be good physicians. Evolution has little to no bearing on what they do or how they do it on a daily basis.
But the idea that someone purporting to be a biologist doesn’t accept one of the fundamental tenants of biology is ridiculous to me. Sure you can do your experiments and publish papers on topics having nothing to do (directly) with evolution, but you have demonstrated a rigidity of thought that is incompatible with good scientific judgement.