Hopefully to encourage you to read the whole thing, here is a quote:
So belief in evolution is not something one simply chooses to believe or to disbelieve, "like a religious proposition." Instead, it is "settled science" that simply compels intellectual assent.
The problems with this argument are legion. In the first place, there is no such thing as "settled science." There is a state of scientific consensus at any given time, and science surely has its reigning orthodoxies. But to understand the enterprise of science is to know that science is never settled. The very nature of science is to test and retest hypotheses and to push toward new discoveries. No Nobel prizes are awarded for settled science. Instead, those prizes are awarded for discoveries and innovations. Many of those prizes, we should note, were awarded in past years for scientific innovations that were later rejected. Nothing in science is truly settled.
Later, Mohler continues:
But the most significant problem with this argument is the outright assertion that science and religion represent two completely separate modes and bodies of knowledge. The Christian understanding of truth denies this explicitly. Truth is truth. There are not different kinds of truth that operate by different intellectual rules.
Every mode of thinking requires belief in basic presuppositions. Science, in this respect, is no different than theology…
Please do take the time to read his entire article…and, if you don’t mind a much less graceful related discussion, listen to my "Out of Nothing" sermon (or read it’s sermon notes).
Ultimately, no…Christian…you aren’t a dummy for believing in creation, and scientists are not using a "higher" approach to reason than you…well…unless you truly have "blind faith."
But, I would argue, so do many people, including scientists, who believe in macro evolution.