How to tell who's right without studying for years
There are those who say, referring to controversial topics like the science-cretinism battle, “I don't have the time to become an expert myself in all relevant topics. Sorry Mr Scientist, all your complicated terms are beyond me so the only side I can actually understand are the creationists” (Yes I'll stay with science/cretinism within the context of this rather short essay, but to a certain degree my advice is applicable in other situations too).
Well, guess what? While of course it does help to be an expert, you can often get at least a generic impression of the trustworthiness of both sides by looking not at the “what”, but at the “how”.
For my chosen example, consider this:
To be able to give a reasonable statement, one should definitely know at least the basics of the other side's position. And as I see it, if your opposition makes a claim that makes your side look bad, you can either refute that claim with good arguments/evidence... or if you don't have that, you better concede “You got a good point there”. If you find more points against them than they find against you, why shouldn't you admit when your opponents are right? You still may easily win after all...
Unless of course you know your just-refuted point is all you have, and still can't for the life of you admit “Okay, you got me. I lose”.
Now have a look at the common modi operandi of both sides. For the scientists, I can say that in all the years I spent examining this “controversy”, I've seen scientists demonstrate good and solid knowledge of the creationists' position's basics, as well as offering good refutations for creationist claims wherever they could, and admitting when they couldn't. A good “evolutionist” will commonly provide references to the points of both sides too.
Compare that to how the creationists operate:
Always the same long-debunked points, repeated ad infinitum no matter how many times they get torn apart by good science. Claims about the thoughts and motivations of the “atheist evolutionists” that hold no water at all, in other words: No idea at all where the other side is coming from. Instead of any good point, baseless accusations of the other side, commonly claiming that TheyTM are immoral/evil/blinded by SaaataaanTM et cetera. Hardly ever a reference to the scientists except for their beloved quote-mines (i. e. quoting something a scientist said totally out of context, so that it appears that the scientist is either an evil monster or really a cretinist. For example, imagine someone quoting just the underlined part of my following quote “I never said that I am a creationist!”).
So you got one side that displays understanding of the other side, refutes their points and oftentimes in fact predicts what claims will come from them and how they will act. You got another side that clearly has no clue and doesn't even try to refute any point of side #1.
Whom will you trust?
Well, I trust you got my point.