Wouldn't that require them to be secret evolutionists? Or at least to have a much, much better grasp of what they're talking about than they let on?
It's my subjective impression, of course, but I've no doubt that creation "scientists" like Ken Ham and his fellow Aussie creationist, John Mackay (
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied) understand evolution very well. I just can't believe that anyone who makes the effort to study the TOE in depth, as they clearly have, could seriously dismiss it. They will know far more about the theory than most ordinary people who readily accept evolution as fact but who have little interest in the subject.
There are other types of professional creationists who do not portray themselves as scientists, but who are really just preachers (like the mustachiod Kiwi).
Then there is the flock who just believe what they want to believe or have been brought up to believe.
But then again we come back to my point (1): they can't all just be trolling, surely? And yet they all look the same from the outside: the same errors of fact, the same errors of reasoning, even the same daft rhetoric. In which case it is more economical to imagine that there is just one kind of creationist than that there are two fundamentally different kinds of creationist both of which look the same from the outside.
It's not surprising at all that they come out with the same crap regarding evolution. They talk to each other and read each other's stuff. And after all, without the religious we wouldn't have the phrase "singing off the same hymn sheet"!