Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?)

Unfortunately, in order for this thread to take some pace other atheists with a similar approach to creationists to Dawkins will have to join him.Because of course, for a creationist his quote is simply a false dilemna.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

A creationist who has in depth study of the many line of evidence that relate to the theory of evolution (therefore not ignorant), and also is considered an intelligent person who is very well educated (PhD style, therefore not 'stupid') and also shows absolutely no characteristics of mental illness (therefore not insane). And finally, he has renounced some high paying jobs in order to become an active proponent of creationism (therefore most probably not wicked)In what category does this person fall into ? Could it be that he genuinely thinks the evidence simply does not support the theory of evolution ? One can simply not think the premise is valid: the theory of evolution isn't really that self-evident.And I don't want to derail the topic, but of course random mutations+inheritable traits+Natural Selection does not automatically, enable the possibility that microbes can become elephants. Unless your telling me you can't possibly consider a universe where all three components can be found and yet evolution wouldn't be sustainable ?