Your reason for accepting evolution

Uh, no. They come to different conclusions because science started with the evidence and has used the evidence to arrive at their conclusions (which are attempts at explaining the evidence), whereas creationists/IDists started with their conclusions and then ignored most of the evidence and lied about the rest while making up some of their own fake evidence.And please, just what is an "evolutionist" supposed to be? Why, the one that had based its conclusions on the evidence, of course. Which is to say, science. And the evidence does support evolution, which is the best explanation we have to explain the evidence. Huh? What makes you think that such a question is valid? Looks like you're making some wild and baseless assumptions there.First, what do you mean by "special creation"? Of course, you refer to a supernatural entity called "the Creator", whom, I assume, you identify as being YHWH. But why modify it with "special"? Are you specifying that this Creator could not have used natural processes to perform this creative act? But why are you overspecifying creation like that?Now, the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of evolution having happened. And even more overwhelmingly in support of the universe having had a long and eventful history.There is no evidence whatsoever of an supernatural Creator, nor should we expect there to be. Because a fundamental part of the nature of the supernatural is that we cannot observe it, we cannot measure it, we cannot perceive it, we cannot even determine whether it exists or not. That is why science does not deal with the supernatural: because science cannot deal with the supernatural. And thus supernaturalistic explanations cannot be used in science because there is no way to test them.So, if this Creator had only used supernatural means and completely bypassed natural means, then no evidence exists for creation. But if this Creator was Sovereign over Nature and had made use of natural processes as well, then there would be evidence. And indeed, the evidence does show that natural processes were used to create the planets and to shape the planets' surfaces. And natural processes were used to develop life on this planet.So, it is false and foolhardy to ask whether the evidence supports creation or evolution. It does certainly support evolution, and it can also support creation if you don't forbid your god to use Nature. Are you dictating to God what He may or may not do? No, it is not. Science cannot make such a statement nor does it promote such a position. Evolution is the most plausible option because it explains the evidence so well, regardless of whether any "transcendent creator" might exist or not. Same as gravity. So this statement of yours is also wild and baseless.Not only does science not try to disprove the existence of any supernatural entities, but it could not even if it were to try. Science cannot deal with the supernatural.Rather, it is creationism which provides disproof of the existence of any supernatural entities. That's right, creationism proves that God does not exist. Because it is creationism that makes several contrary-to-fact claims (all of them lies, BTW) and furthermore teaches that if those contrary-to-fact claims were found to be contrary-to-fact (which they most certainly are!), then the Bible is false and God does not exist. Or at the very least God is a liar whom you should turn your back on and refuse to worship. If you disagree with that, then please tell me what you believe the consequences would be if you were to realize that evolution is true. And please be truthful in your answer.Yes, I know, those creationist teachings are false and lies, but their followers don't realize it and they believe what they are told. So when they are faced with the real world evidence and are no longer able to deceive themselves about it, they lose their faith. And the members of the general public who don't know any better also see those creationist claims and they take them at face value and they see that those claims are so ludicrously false that they accept the creationists' "proof" that God does not exist. There is a lot of experimental data that supports evolution. As well as paleotological evidence. The only way to say that there is no evidence is through standard creationist lies. As already established, since science uses the evidence to better understand the evidence, it is very well supported by the evidence. And since creationism abuses and ignores the evidence, it is very poorly supported by the evidence. False, in both ways.First, when given two choices that are not mutually exclusive, it is not true that one of them must be true. What about the third, fourth, n-th choices? You've constructed a false dichotomy and the only purpose that a false dichotomy can serve is to deceive.Second, it is false to state that they can't both be true. As I pointed out above, evolution is a natural process, the natural consequences of life doing what life does. And a Creator who is Sovereign over Nature would not have been restricted from using Nature. There is no inherent conflict between Nature and Creation; there is only conflict with certain narrow and contrary-to-fact beliefs. It does an excellent job of explaining the evidence and how life works. And it makes so much sense.Now, since you seem so bent on your false dichotomies, I should point out a couple things:
1. I am not a Christian. I started out as one, but at around the age of 11 I started reading the Bible and found it to be so unbelievable that, since I could not believe it, I realized that I had to leave. The same nave literalist mistakes evident in your OP. Right decision for me, albeit for the wrong reasons.2. I could never become a Christian. Because those who would try to convert me have amply demonstrated through their use of "creation science" their zeal for blatantly lying about everything that they possibly could lie about. And if they lie about those things that we can test, why should I ever believe that they're not lying about those those things that we cannot test? Like all their claims, many of them quite detailed, about the supernatural. No, it's quite obvious that they're lying about that too.