I've seen these creationism (under various labels) vs evolution debates for years and they always seem to boil down to dueling responses to ignoramce.

On one hand is the systematic response of science where the first step is to acknowledge that the intent is to try to relieve ignorance through challenging any and all statements with the fundamental question "How do you come to claim what you claim?" If the answer does not meet the challenge, peer review should point out the failure. Ignorance might or might not be beaten back, but the effort made will be clear and documented so that anyone following the claims and defense can consider the details for themself.

On the other hand is the claim of creationism/intelligent design/religion to address ignorance - God did it.

This statement is semantically equivalent to both "It was magic" and "I don't know but I claim my ignorance to be an advantage." In other words, to say that a deity did anything through supernatural means is to acknowledge ignorance along with a willful desire to remain unknowing.

The nature of ignorance, not knowing, is that if it is a desired state, nothing can be done to address it. You can lead a person to reason to but you cannot make them think.

So if science is not persuasive to you, fine, no problem. Don't be persuaded. Feel free to try to convince people that your ignorance is a special advantage. It will still be a matter of saying that something magical happened and so will do nothing to respond to the original state of ignorance.

But maybe you'll convince yourself of something.