The question really is to what extent we should assume good faith. We had a discussion about that question a couple of years back.
As a general rule, I think it’s reasonable to expect people to make sure their arguments are consistent with their general level of education and experience. If a PhD astrophysicist is making claims that fly in the face of GCSE-level maths, for example, that is not something I would consider even remotely acceptable and for that a designation of “lying” would be appropriate. On the other hand, an arts or humanities graduate would warrant somewhat more leeway. They have ignorance as an excuse. PhD astrophysicists do not have that luxury.
There is one confounding factor though. There are some Bible verses that talk about God choosing the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1) and it’s quite common in some Christian circles to read those verses as if they were some sort of anti-intellectual manifesto. It’s not uncommon for people with a background in science or engineering to start viewing their technical background as something that gets in the way and causes them to start “overthinking” things. Personally I think such people are missing the point of these verses—they’re about people who lack an education through disability or discrimination, not about lowering your intellectual standards by choice—but people who get into that way of thinking can easily end up in a mindset where they think they’re acting in good faith when they are regurgitating arguments that they should otherwise be reasonably expected to know to be patent nonsense.