1)Some do. Granted, people usually don't bother to question Kent Hovind, and they go about repeating his BS with perfect sincerity. But it did start with an ignorant and/or dishonest person.
2) Again, it's easy to find softer examples, but that is irrelevant. Many fundies only accept literalism as true Christianity, and if you believe in evolution, then you are a "fake Christian," and destined to burn in hell. Maybe they aren't that common where you live, but I've seen plenty of them. You have no grounds to call me "ignorant" on that point.
3) There is no difference between the two. My argument is pointing fingers, since what I am explaining is why so many in the U.S. doubt evolution, unlike most other well-established scientific theories.
4) Genesis does say that God created the major forms of life within six days of starting his project. That pretty effectively rules out evolution as I see it.
5) What exactly are we arguing? Are you denying that churches are largely responsible for widespread creationism?
1) I've never even heard of him. Perhaps that's more of a local/sectional/area thing.
What started with an ignorant person?
2) Extremists are...well, extreme. You shouldn't base your entire opinion or knowledge of Christianity on a literalistic sect. There are Christians that are more reasonable, and probably better examples of the Christian religion as a whole.
3) The reason many people don't trust evolution so much as other scientific theories is because it is harder to prove and more personal. Anyone could believe in gravity because anything can see something fall to the ground. Now, coming from fish and monkeys after years and years of change...that's harder to grasp, and much shakier. Even if that is believable, there's really not much that says how life came to be in the first place, and don't even get started on the origins of the universe. Even with all the theories on evolution, the question still exists of where we came from, and thus creationism still exists.
4) In six days.....before there was any concept of a day. Literally, yeah, that wouldn't coincide with evolution at all. But if you take it a bit more abstractly (which, personally, I believe it was meant to be taken in such a manner), or, if you consider it with a more thoughtful and logical approach, a day in God's time is really not comparable with a day as it exists today, especially because part of that time was before He even "made" the sun and the moon, which basically were the determinants of a "day" as we, as people, understand it.
The theory of intelligent design combines the two concepts; the first day, God created the Universe, light and dark...in other words, the big bang. The Earth was also created because the religious purpose of human beings would not require the time frame from the conception of the universe to the creation of the Earth, and therefore doesn't need to be separated; it is the first day of "our" time.
In short, the "six days" could very possibly be viewed as periods of history or times of the Earth, rather than six literal days. And that is an example of interpretation.
5) That's what you were arguing, I think, but I was arguing against following anything without a full understanding of the mechanics and standpoint of both sides, and, more specifically, science's rather quick assumption that the church is just a collection of dumbasses that like making up things in their utter ignorance of everything. Sure, they have been, and still are in many places, corrupt, but that doesn't mean the entire principle is useless.