That is correct, but don't be offended.
For starters, when it comes to the scientific community, nobody but experts in a particular scientific field count. In the case of evolutionary theory, why would they care what creationists think? Even if creationists agreed with them, why would that matter to them? I happen to agree with them, and that is also irrelevant to them. They don't consider the theory one bit more sound because lay people agree with them than they would consider it less sound because creationists disagree. There simply is no debate except within the scientific community, and it is not over whether evolution is a correct theory or not. That's settled science among empiricists, whether experts or lay people.
Second, there is no value to the critical thinker in the creationist objection. If one wants to critique the science, he should demonstrate proficiency in it. He he wants to critique the reasoning connecting the evidence to the basic tenets of evolutionary theory, one needs to demonstrate proficiency in critical thinking and the evaluation of evidence. Creationists typically get the science wrong, misrepresent the claims of the scientists, and leave paragraphs of logical fallacies behind.
This thread is full of examples of this - "only a 5-year old could believe in abiogenesis or evolution," "no proof of genes morphing into a form that overtakes or changes from the form before," "I've come to the conclusion that there truly IS no real evidence supporting the theory," "evolution is a religion with no evidence," "discovery of fish in Japan I believe, said to be a new species -- they're still fish," "so called Scientists will make statements that Arti and Lucy is the final fact that humans evolved from hominids," "All observed change in all life at all levels and types at all times is sudden. All individuals are equally fit," etc.. (I hope that anonymously quoting posters in this thread isn't an RF violation; apologies if it is).
I assure you that as soon as a person knowledgeable about the science and the principles of critical thought sees a comment like any of these, he loses interest in the discussion except perhaps to correct the errors of fact and identify the logical fallacies. And this is perfectly reasonable. How much stock are you going to put in the opinions on Christianity from somebody who attributes the global flood of Genesis to Satan testing Noah's willingness to slay a son, or says that Sodom and Gomorrah were a couple of kids thrown out of a garden? When somebody makes mistakes as fundamental as those, you stop talking their opinions on your religion seriously, right? This is the same as that.
Tell me that evolution is only theory and not proven and you've immediately disqualified yourself as a collocutor to take seriously in the same way as the guy who screws up the scriptures. Incidentally, that's two mistakes, not one, and the mistakes are not that the theory of evolution is a theory (it is) or that the theory isn't proven (it isn't and never will be, unless by proof one means supported beyond reasonable doubt, which is presently the case).
Moreover, apologists have a different agenda - promoting their faith - and use different methods reflecting different values. Creationist apologetics have a poor reputation for honesty, and gravitate to any argument that seems to support their faith-based position while disregarding contradictory evidence. This manner of processing information is alien and antithetical to empiricism, which agenda is to discover what is demonstrably and reproducibly true about the world, and which derives sound conclusions by the proper application of reason to all relevant evidence wherever that might lead. People that do that are comfortable with evolution. People uncomfortable with evolution don't do that.
Another important difference: The scientists make their case for evolution without mention of creationism. They refer to the theory's ability to unify mountains of evidence. The theory accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature. It provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature. It accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity. And it has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.
Creationists, by contrast, have no argument for creationism better than that life seems too complex to have evolved naturalistically to them, or that evolution can't be "proved"- already a reference to the science. The creationist argument virtually never mentions creationism. Perhaps that's because creationism can do none of the things the scientific theory as just described can. It has no predictive power and offers no mechanism. This is another reason for empiricists to disregard creationism. It has this in common with astrology, alchemy, and blood letting, and for the same reason - they're all predicated on a wrong idea about how the world works believed by faith, and they have all been replaced with empirical science that are useful (astronomy, chemistry, medicine). Creationism and evolution are another such pair, the first being faith-based and sterile, the second being empirically derived, and replacing it with an idea that bears fruit as described.
Anyway, I've had pleasant discussions with you in the past and consider you far from the worst offender here. I don't recall the thread to which you referred in your OP, but may I suggest that you not take these criticisms personally or have an emotional reaction to them. Creationists will never have standing with the empiricists in these discussions as long as they use words like evidence and reason rather than faith, nor should they. Tell the empiricist that this is what you believe because the Bible says so, and he'll likely tell you that he disagrees or less. Once the apologist gets into arguing the science and offering fallacious arguments, then there are grounds for rebuttal, which rebuttal should never be taken personally even if it contradicts a cherished belief, even if it sounds like blasphemy or impiety.
