Thank you, well stated! Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they would take their circular blinders off long enough to see reasonable points. Many have no idea that the basis for their reasoning is circular. They haven’t exercised reasonable doubt or any kind of questioning attitude about the theory that they seem to be so deeply invested in.
The first group and the majority (including a good portion of the non-scientific general public) fall under the fallacy of argumentum ad populum: "Every scientist believes it so it must be true". This is problematic from a number of standpoints. Firstly, there are plenty of scientists who reject the GToE in both its classical Darwinian slow-and-gradual form and the newer punctuated equilibrium ("hopeful moster") variety on grounds of plausibility, ergo, "part of an eye confers no benefit, and the probability of all of its constituent parts coming together all at once through purely random processes bends credulity to its breaking point." Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was among them. He didn't accept special creation but just punted by positing aliens as the source of life, which begs an obvious question. Secondly, most mainstream scientists come out of the current system, one which not only favors GToE but insists upon it. Young scientists cannot graduate without accepting established orthodoxy, at least outwardly.
The second group are the "lifers", those whose entire careers and reputations - indeed, the very core of their worldviews - are staked upon the naturalistic premise. They will not consider a supernatural origin because the supernatural component itself lies outside the bounds of observable science. In debates I have watched over the years, I have occasionally heard such proponents come to admit that, at the core, their belief is emotionally-grounded. They simply cannot have God in the equation and thus cloak themselves in what they call "science" as a sort of pseudo-religion with which to inoculate them. The one constant that they must retain is that of purely naturalistic origins. That must stand at any cost, even if it means accepting tautology, circular reasoning, logical fallacies.
Please don't ever be intimidated by their dazzling vernacular. At the core, it is still a lie built upon a false premise at the foundation.