From my experience, that does seem to be the case. And also explains their position, because I've found that people who *do* sit down and learn the material don't *stay* anti-evolution creationists for long. It's only by maintaining a strict self-imposed ignorance (via "Morton's Demon") that they're able to cling to beliefs like "there's no evidence for evolution" and "evolution is just a crumbling atheistic conspiracy", etc.
It's similar to (and in some ways, a direct overlap with) the results of the study which found that people who were incompetent at certain tasks were *also* incompetent at recognizing how poorly they were doing at it (they thought they were performing *really* well...) It turns out to be a vicious cycle -- if you believe that you don't have any need to improve, then you don't take any steps *to* improve. Cluelessness breeds continued cluelessness. And on the flip side of the feedback loop, lack of knowledge facilitates continued incapacity to recognize how much better you *could* be doing, which reinforces the overconfidence in one's performance.
I've observed a couple of tenaciously-held misconceptions by creationists:
First, they imagine that the entire evidence for evolution is maybe a dozen or so fossils, all of them fakes. If only they knew how little they know. On the other hand, the entire case for creationism is made by a dozen or so creationist authors, who are endlessly quoted at creationist websites, and all of them are indeed fakes -- or fools, or crackpots.
Second, they imagine that scientists sit in their labs, bibles open, as they go through it line by line, looking for ways to disprove it. In reality, it's the creationists who pour over genuine science articles, line by line, looking for quotes to mine. And one of them has admitted it in print:
A great need -- but very expensive -- is that of more high-quality scientific research. We have been able to accomplish much significant research with our limited staff and our graduate students, but much more is needed, especially in the various problem areas [hee hee] of geology, archaeology, anthropology, and astronomy. In the secular world, this type of research is very largely funded by government grants. We, of course, do not have access to government funding [I wonder why], and would not accept it if we did [yeah, right], so this is a serious inhibiting factor. In the meantime, even though we do not yet have answers to all the problems in scientific creationism, the answers we do have are better than those the evolutionists and "progressive creationists" have. We can at least do literature research, using the experimental data acquired by evolutionary scientists and reinterpreting such data in terms of Creation and the Flood. The modern creation revival has, in fact, largely been developed by this process.I just checked the link, and it seems that they've taken it down. Amazing. I thought you couldn't embarrass a creationist.
Source: ICR AND THE FUTURE.