Rather than suggesting that your interlocutor is some kind of anti-science religious nut, perhaps you might ponder, that on some matters, the science is so crude, that the suggestions as to how it happened can be better characterized as speculation, rather than awarded the overgenerous appellation of being characterized as a theory. Sure, if like me, you are a near atheist, you ASSUME that it happened somehow through natural processes. But to suggest it is anything other than an assumption, an
a priori belief, is skating rather close to the sin of hubris, and that is one sin in my view, that has gravitas. Just ask the ancient Greeks.
I also dislike name calling, such as the indiscriminate use of the word "crevo" as a put down. We can do better than that, and we should.
"crevo" is one of the ones that I do not see as a putdown.
It is a contraction of CReationist/EVOlutionist. I see it as purely descriptive.