Evolutionists frequently accuse creationists of ignoring evidence. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that most evolutionists are convinced by their education that all the evidence support the Big Bang to man evolutionary story. Consequently, the only explanation. for not agreeing with it, is that you are ignoring the evidence. Furthermore, they frequently confuse the interpretation of evidence for the evidence itself. The result of this perspective is that they conclude that rejecting the interpretation is the same as ignoring or even denying the evidence.
So do creationists actually ignore evidence. Well statistically speaking, if you defined a creationist as anyone who accepts Biblical creation then you are going to find some who actually do. However, the question here is not whether or not the intellectually lazy ignore evidence, but whether or not ignoring evidence is a general creationist trait. The answer to this question is no. Most active creationists that I am aware of, have read lots of original papers on evidence claimed by evolutionists, and will frequently read any papers referenced as long as they are not locked behind a paywall.
My personal experience with most original papers on any topic being promoted by evolutionary publications, evolutionary science popularizers, and evolutionists in general is that the original papers are never as supportive of evolutionary theory as claimed. In fact, I have frequently seen that nothing destroys a good evolutionist argument like the original paper does.
In most discussions that I have had with evolutionists, regardless of their education level, I frequently find that their level of knowledge on a given topic indicates that they have not read the original paper. In many cases all they are doing is regurgitating what they have gotten from Science News articles, science popularizer videos or websites, and other secondary sources. In other words, they are frequently, though not always, not even checking the original material themselves.
This is supported by the fact that on the rear occasions that I see an evolutionist actually provide a reference to a claim that it is seldom the original paper, or at least a site giving a real scientific discussion. More often than not such references are to Science News sites or blogs. This of course is on the rare occasions where they actually provide a reference at all.
Now, if as a creationist you provide references to creationist material, most evolutionists will summarily reject it. This not only includes articles and video presentations that are clearly scientific presentations of theories, evidence and other material which have other peer reviewed sources. but they also summarily reject any papers from even the three main creationist journals. They frequently make it clear that they will only accept a paper if it has been published by accepted secular journals. Simply put, they assume that any paper published in a creationist journal has not been really peer reviewed. At the same time, they assume that secular journals are 100% totally objective, and that they would approve for publication creationist papers if they had any legitimacy. This is then used as an excuse for summarily rejecting and ignoring any evidence presented by creationists,
This assumption completely ignores what happened on the two occasions where intelligent design managed to make it into a secular journal. In both cases, the reaction from the scientific establishment was an almost religious burn the heretics type of attitude. One resulted in the editor Richard Sternberg Losing his job, and the other only died down once the reference was discovered to be a translation error from Chinese to English.
So, in conclusion, despite their claims about creationists, they are the ones that repeatedly and consistently ignore evidence on a large scale. They do so by summarily rejecting anything that comes from creationist sources, on the excuse that if it were legitimate their pre-approved sources would publish it. In other words, they predefine pro Big Bang to man evolutionary sources as the only acceptable source of evidence, and then use that has a basis, for not only claiming that creation is have no evidence, but for summarily rejecting any evidence presented by creationists. Consequently, it is evolutionists not creationists who ignore and reject evidence that goes against their preconceptions.
