You'd have to. Think about it: how would YOU try to defend something as blindingly stupid as an ideological doctrine (evolutionism) which required an infinite sequence of zero-probability events in order to even get started, I mean, something immeasurably stupider than voodoo, rastifari, or believing in the great pumpkin?
The ONLY way I could think of to do it is precisely what we observe in the evolutionists, i.e. maximum arrogance.
I believe in the great pumpkin and I'm awfully damned proud of it and, buddy, if you DON'T believe in the great pumpkin, you are seriously messed up.
What kind of moron thinks that evolution requires an "infinite" sequence of "zero probability" events? Replace that with a finite sequence of non-zero probability events and at least you'll be somewhere vaguely in the realm of reality.
However, ...get into an in-depth discussion about the issues central to the debate (assuming you get that far) and you often get :
-"Evolution does not address that"
-swaps and associations such as "science" for "evolution (theory)" that are artfully switched in and out of assertions and arguments "as if" they are one-in-the-same.
-An incredible need of an alternative theory/belief/anything for comparison or deflection.
-"Six degrees to creation theory" game. (much like the Bacon game, but with a sneer. (see above)
It simply is not fair or correct to paint either side with a broad brush. Within each camp there are those who hold legitimately strong and honest opinions. However within each group there also exists the opposite.
I find it interesting the difference between what evo's discuss amongst themselves versus "creationists". If the creationist discusses evolutionists spiritual longevity, or any other aspect of their person, it's certainly not with delight or enjoyment as we see with the other side who derives pleasure out of ridicule.