I think the vast majority of Creationists I've met don't believe in evolution in a passive sense, it sounds like daft nonsense they have no real interest in, as you said, and they don't really know much about it due to having no interest in "that kind of thing". I think this is much more common than knowing about it in depth and rejecting it, i.e. "knowing about it, but valuing it less".
There are highly scientifically literate Creationists I've met, but these would be in the minority.
That said though the highly scientifically literate Creationists I've met or debated with online either:
(a) Are ignorant of the field they reject. For example I've met a theoretical physicist who rejects evolution, but he doesn't really know it in depth. I have never, in all my time with this issue, seen a Creationist fully take on modern evolutionary theory scientifically (rather than using rhetorical/showmanship techniques) from a position of decent knowledge.
(b) Engage in some form of "Last Thursday"-ism. The fella I mentioned above acknowledges that the Big Bang matches observational evidence to an incredible degree and that there is no evidence against it, but still thinks this is simply an interesting fact of the mathematics, i.e. the maths just happens to obtain correct facts about the world even though the picture underneath it has no reality. We live in a recently created world, it's just that the model of a 13.7 billion year old relativistic universe manages to produce the correct mathematics for modelling distant star light.
(c) Related to (b), essentially always pull some form of "what-if" or "how do you know". Discovery of transitional fossils leads to requiring transitions between the transitional fossils Multiple independent sources of the age of the Earth agreeing is met with "how do we know" they aren't all systematically biased via an unknown mechanism which happens to make them all agree on the same old date.
Another thing is, this may seem ideological to you, some sort of "Evolution vs Creationism", but it isn't. Creationists are just another hold out group, like Indian nationalists who think Indo-European never existed or originated in India (another group I frequently debate). It isn't "Indo-Europeanism" vs "Hindu nativism". It's just the scientifically supported model vs something that supports the "world story" of some ideological group and that something just has no real evidence.
It seems the problem with your post from my perspective is it categorises creationists into three groups
No, I describe three kinds of behaviours I've encountered, some people do all three. I've never met somebody who doesn't do one, but there probably is. I'm not categorising.
The second problem with your argument is that it relies on the fallacy called the Black Swan Fallacy
This is where, to some degree, we hit a problem.
First of all, it's not an argument. The multiple "I met" and "in my experience" are to indicate it's just my experience. There's no large scale study of the Creationist community in the manner your discussing, at least not one I have seen, so I have nothing else. I'm not indicating this is absolutely true nor categorising creationists. Just listing three observed behaviours.
The "problem" I'm alluding to is that evolution is the scientific consensus. Perhaps there is a Creationist who fully understands it and has a solid argument against it. I've never seen them and neither it seems has the scientific community in general, since evolution is still the consensus of the scientific community and no such arguments are presented at serious scientific conferences.
Is it more likely you are just saying that to have a pop at creationists?
No. Creationists to me are an interesting American* movement. I never meet them in day to day life aside from the one guy on a sabbatical (from the US) I mentioned above. Honestly I don't really have a bias against Creationists anymore than you do against Fianna Fáil.
It seems more reasonable to believe that as a human being, you have certain biases
Yes I certainly do, but as above, not about Creationism. I have no biases against Indian nationalists either.
Similarly I could say, "evolutionists are just another outgroup, they're clinging on to Neo-Darwinism when it's clear epigenetics and other factors have now shown it outdated, they are no different from Indian nationalists or flat earthers."
Except the global scientific community's assessment of the evidence is against the latter two and not the former. Just as it is against Creationism, that is the fundamental difference.
Now of course we could go deeper into it and I could begin to present the actual evidence which convinces >99.9% of the biological community, but that's what the entirety of the rest of the forum is about (has been about), I'm not going to rehash it.
The observed fact is that scientific community is not convinced of Creationism and treats it just like flat-Earth and Indian origins for Indo-European. I would like to hear a non-conspiratorial explanation of that fact.
If you want me to go in depth on a topic on which I have read both sides I can. It's specifically Cosmology, where I have read all the major Creationist papers and found them ignorant of modern cosmological evidence and theory, then I can. However I don't know if that is what you want.
*Of course it exists outside America, but I've mostly encountered it as an American issue and the form I've debated most is American.
Of course this wasn't really meant as a debate topic as such, I thought the quizzes might interest members.
That's what I thought. Hence I informally discussed my experience related to your questions. As I said we can rigorously discuss cosmology if you want. I'm not well up enough on biology.
I have given an argument against evolution here which is a logically correct deductive argument in message one, but I won't discuss it here, as this isn't the place to discuss these things, so don't attempt some flippant complaint here please;
Because creation contains inferences and a conclusion God is there, the recent agreement among scientists is that it doesn't count because God, a transcendant being of supernature, cannot be scientifically tested.
But my thoughts on that would take some typing and I would end up boring you perhaps. haha.
Oh well, this is very different to the usual run of the mill stuff, at least for me. I was reading the works of Bart Ehrman and this comes up in refutations of his work quite a bit. I would be interested actually, however maybe another forum maybe?
(Should a discussion about this be outside "Is it science?", since you're basically saying it isn't, more questioning can science provide the correct answer in this regard).