The people who choose to believe God over the speculations of man, no matter what they're based on, do not deserve the pejorative of *cretard* or *cretin* or whatever derogatory label you choose to attach to those who choose a different path than you.
You base your acceptance of the ToE on what you can see and touch which is certainly your right. But basing your acceptance of the TOE based on the evidence you see is not of faith and to add something that is not of faith to Scripture cannot, by your own reasoning, be pleasing to God.
Others of us base our acceptance of the creation account based on our conviction of God's truthfulness and reliability, accepting what He said in matters where we haven't seen Him work based on His faithfulness in our lives in areas where we have seen Him work.
FWIW, the main area of disagreement concerning the ToE between evos and creationists is the amount of change that occurs. Creationists do NOT disagree with natural selection and variation within species. That can be clearly seen. The major area is the amount of change that's capable of happening. Simply because one doesn't believe that enough change can happen to cause speciation, does not mean one is stupid or ignorant or uneducated. It means that someone has a different philosophical basis for their interpretation of the evidence. And that basis is based on interpretation of Scripture.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's not valid, because your basis is that of "methodological naturalism", which is simply your choice. "Methodological naturalism" is strictly a philosophy and as such cannot be supported scientifically, as science is incapable of addressing that which cannot be observed of tested. So your choice to go with that has no more valid a basis than anyone who chooses to accept what God had written in Scripture as He wrote it.
Evos as a whole like to present themselves as intellectually superior and better educated that those who disagree with them (present company included, amd) but that cannot be demonstrated by adherence to a certain philosophy. One's philosophical position is not a litmus test or indicator of intelligence.
If faith is so important to you, then why do you go to such lengths to mock the intelligence of those who disagree with you? You're all worried about how creationists make Christians and conservatives look because of how they choose to exercise their faith in God (which evos portray as being *stupid*), and yet it seems to completely escape your notice how your mockery and derision of those who disagree with you make evolutionists look.
At worst, creationists will be portrayed as stupid (really only because they're portrayed that way by evos such as yourself). Your behavior and that of other evos, makes them come across as mean-spirited, spiteful, and condescending, which doesn't even need to be portrayed by anyone else as anyone can see that behavior for what it is.
To convince others that creationists are stupid requires attacks and convincing, as one's intellectual capabilities are not immediately apparent based on their belief in creation. To convince others that evos are mean spirited and spiteful just requires that others see their behavior. It speaks for itself.
You believe in your own interpretation of the Bible over the evidence of reality.
“But basing your acceptance of the TOE based on the evidence you see is not of faith and to add something that is not of faith to Scripture cannot, by your own reasoning, be pleasing to God.”
I am not adding anything to scripture, I interpret scripture in light of reality and what is known. I know from scripture that I am “made from dust”, I know from biology that I am made via cellular processes involving DNA. That knowledge doesn't “add” to scripture something not of faith, it adds knowledge to the interpretation of scripture.
Previously scripture was interpreted to mean that the Sun circled the Earth. I add knowledge to that interpretation and find that such is not necessitated by scripture and that such an interpretation was an error. Once you have wedded yourself that to believe your particular dogma is to “believe God” you have thrown out any recourse to ever correct yourself.
So if you find the mechanism of evolution unsuited to the task of speciation, tell me, what barrier would stop a 2% genetic change or a 6% genomic change between humans and chimps over several million years?
The lack of several million years? That would be a limit of time, not of the mechanism.
I point out that the more educated one is the less likely they are to be a creationist because once you know that it allows you to correctly guess why creationist sources are so information poor and why creationists are so ill informed and ill educated about science.
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8
Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11