“all facts must be interpreted”

This is the “escape” that creationists wish to use. But there really is a complete dichotomy – creationists interpret the facts using their religious worldview and scientists interpret the facts using a naturalistic worldview.

So there’s no room for discussion. There’s no way to compromise.

“we need to actually find out what they believe and why if we’re going to have a civil understanding.”

What we believe is that gods/religion are unnecessary. Why is that there’s no naturalistic evidence. So the “civil understanding” is that we do science and you do prayer. And if you want to do science, leave religion out of it.

And if creationism and “intelligent design” are expelled from science, get over it.

“all facts must be interpreted”

How do “young earth creationists” interpret the fact that this universe came into existence about 14 billion years ago? It’s not true because it contradicts the Bible? How is a “civil understanding” possible?

I “listen” to “Answers in Genesis” and I hear nonsense, not arguments.

“you declare the believer ignorant, dumb, and disparage their intellect”

Many “believers” are obviously intelligent. But it appears that they have made absolutely no attempt to actually understand the 1001 reasons why evolution is obviously true. Isn’t it rather “dumb” to be so “ignorant”?

“that each side has a well thought out set of beliefs, and worldview”

Quite true. However, one worldview is based on reality and the other is based on wishful thinking.

“If, however, you believe that God has told us exactly how He created the earth and life”

then this is religion, not science. And it is a denial of reality. So the “dichotomy” seems perfectly fine to me. The claim that is it false is false.

“ever to have a productive conversation”

What would a “productive conversation” really be like? You base everything on religion and I base everything on science. We don’t share “assumptions” about reality. We don’t speak the same language. We cannot communicate.

“the best argument is no argument at all”

This is the best “solution” for someone who does not actually have any non-religious argument to give.

“shout him down”

That’s one form of communication – but, as you say, it’s not likely to be productive.

It’s about as meaningful as discussing Christianity/Capitalism. They are neither synonymous, nor necessary complements of each other.

To answer your question, while I believe it is theoretically possible for somebody to have a comprehensive understanding of biology without accepting one of its major theories for whatever bizarre reason, experience tells us that most creationists (intelligent design advocates included) don’t in fact understand evolution, or make fallacious arguments against it.

And really, if the author of that AiG piece is suggesting that creationist laypersons – many of whom don’t have more than a high school level of scientific literacy -understand evolution better than the overwhelming majority of biologists who actual study it, then it’s ludicrous.

By the way, you’ve got a fancy blog!
NPs last blog post..Evolu-shunned?