Evolutionists are like a blind person touching an elephant. They limit themselves to only life and use science at their viewer. Creationists view the whole aminal, vegetable and mineral universe and regard the evolutionist's views as incomplete.
Awesome. So you understand why creationism/ID should not be taught in the science classroom. They are fundamentally different "aminals".
Creationists are like a palsied person touching a cactus.
Ah, I see. So evolution and creation represent entirely different modes, or at least levels, of understanding. Therefore they are not comparable alternatives, and it would be misleading to present them as such (say in science curricula). Likewise since evolution restricts itself to science it should be taught as science, but creationism is more inclusive and therefore extra scientific. Finally, being on different levels of understanding, evolution and creation are not (necessarily) contradictory, and it would be false then to claim that evolution is inherently atheistic.
I believed all this anyway, but thanks for the support!
This statement is more-or-less correct, although I'm not sure exactly what "they limit themselves to only life" means. Science recognizes its limitations and acknowledges them. This is generally considered to be a good thing.
Creationists view the whole aminal, vegetable and mineral universe and regard the evolutionist's views as incomplete.
Creationists can claim this, but can they demonstrate it?