Because the idea of Evolution is so ingrained into our culture that it is often seen as being as well established as gravity, Evolutionists often characterise Christians as being scientifically illiterate cultists with no hope of passing a high school exam. In reality, there are a number of scientists who doubt or reject Evolution, and even firmly stand on the word of God. But as vehement as Evolutionists are about this, it's all just one more desperate attempt to bully dissenting voices into silence. Evolution, unlike real science, is heavily grounded in philosophy.
In science, a theory is formulated, the evidence is weighed, and no matter what you believe at the start, you will generally be convinced that you were either right or wrong by the end. With a number of techniques, and increasingly advanced technology, it is becoming easier and easier to do real science. Even a child may be given a science kit, with which they are able to conduct a number of fascinating experiments. A lot of science doesn't even need a specialised kit. The thing about all of this is that no matter who does which experiment, they will always yield similar results. Different results are usually the result of an error in methodology.
But because Evolution is more philosophical than scientific, where you begin will determine where you end. Whereas a debate on the shape of the earth can be instantly ended by presenting a photo, or a debate on gravity can be won by dropping a tennis ball, debates on Evolution vs. Creation cannot be settled so easily. This is because Evolution is not based on evidence that would compel a reasonable observer to draw a specific conclusion, but on whether or not you are willing to connect a certain number of dots that other people may be less willing to connect.
The dots themselves are established facts. Neither Christians nor Evolutionists deny these things. As a common example, let's take the phrase "we have the fossils, we win". In the mind of an Evolutionist, the very word "fossil" is enough to discredit Creationism. One display at the Museum of Western Colorado’s Dinosaur Valley, USA, even took the extreme measure of defining a fossil as "any evidence of life older than 7,000 years". But Creationism doesn't require the absence of fossils!
One could compare this to a debate about whether or not it has been raining. Picture the scenario: I walk into my house. All of my clothes are dripping wet, and so my mother asks "has it been raining?" And I tell her no. She insists that it must have been, because my clothes are wet, but I tell her that I actually fell into the stream while walking in the park. These are two perfectly valid explanations as to why my clothes are wet. Now imagine my mother saying "I see your wet clothes, I win."
In my analogy, the evidence fits both theories. In fact, unlike Evolution, my mother's conclusion could be reasonably concluded from that evidence. But only one of them can be correct. My theory is based on witness testimony, whereas my mother's is based on inference. The problem is that she insisted on the inference, whereas there was no due cause to do so.
Just as there is no reason to insist it must have been raining because my clothes are wet, there is no reason to insist that fossils must be millions of years old. This is especially true now that we have several examples of fossils being formed in years, months, weeks and even in 24 hours. A large number of things, including coal, diamonds, oil, stalactites etc. that were once thought to take millions of years to form have been shown to form very quickly, and can even be produced commercially. Creationists do not deny the facts, but the inferences Evolutionists make with them in mind.
Homology is another excellent example. Evolutionists insist that homology is proof of Evolution, and yet design is also a valid explanation (especially when homology frequently defies Evolutionary expectations). Human designs also share homologous features, even when the designer is different, so is it unreasonable to assume the ultimate designer would operate in the same way? Of course not!
Evolution, therefore, is not a scientific fact, but is rather a philosophical belief. Whereas debates about science can be solved by experimentation, there are zero experiments that can be performed to demonstrate Evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution is based on philosophy, not science. And in fact, that philosophy is so terrible that Evolutionists typically lose the rare debates they accept.
Interestingly, this fact has been acknowledged by none other than Eugenie Scott, who in 1994 wrote "During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.
Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate."
Scott goes on to make a number of feeble excuses about why this is, mostly complaining about how stupid she thinks the audiences are, and how sneaky she thinks Creationists are, but she is not wrong about the tendency of Creationists to win these debates. And contrary to her claims, this is not because Evolution is too complex to at least show some evidence of in a debate format, but because not everyone is willing to accept "this fossil looks sort of like this fossil, therefore they must be related". Evolution is sloppy science that is defended by bad philosophy.
By contrast, science itself finds its origins in the Christian faith. As Loren Eilsley says, "The philosophy of experimental science…began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
Thus, while Evolution is bad science supported by bad philosophy, science itself owes its origins to the good philosophy of the Christian faith. It is no wonder, therefore, that science has historically been dominated by Christians, and despite vicious attempts to shut them out of science, Christians continue to be fascinated by science to this very day, believing it to be a useful tool that helps us to worship the God who created it all. Evolutionists, whether they like it or not, are faced with the unenviable task of disproving the existence of water by waving around a fish.