The problem isn't so much an unwillingness to accept scientific methodologies as it is a basic disconnect in worldviews. Creationism is based first and foremost on a particular interpretation of certain Biblical passages. These Scriptures are taken as inerrant, but more to the point, creationists regard them as literal truths. (Not everyone who holds the Bible to be inerrant is a creationist. Some follow a less literal reading of Scripture.) Given that view, it's necessary to explain why scientific results don't accord with the scriptural interpretation. Science is not inerrant, so it must perforce lose the battle: it doesn't support creationism because scientists don't want it to. To argue against this view is, in most cases, to lose. Creationists cannot change their minds without denying their most cherished beliefs. For them, it is tantamount to converting to atheism.

This is not an argument against Biblical literalism, by the way (in case anyone out there thought that's what I was saying). I'm not in that camp myself, but I understand the view. I'm making a broader point here. Read on.

I'm a Baha'i, and my religion holds that science and religion are harmonious. Both deal in reality, so they cannot truly conflict. You'd think most people would appreciate that view, but no. Creationists sure don't. Nor do most atheists with whom I've discussed the idea. They can't countenance the idea that any religion holds any validity whatsoever. This is their worldview, and nobody can argue them out of it. (I know. I've learned by bitter experience the futility of trying.) Even when I affirm every scientific result they embrace, they still refuse to accept that any religion can be anything but contrary to science.

Bottom line, all people (including those who refuse to acknowledge it) have cherished belief systems, even if of their own making. Putting forth ideas that contradict our belief systems is a threat to us. That goes for myself, too. The problem isn't convincing people that science (or religion, for that matter) is valid. The problem is, people don't like to hear that the very foundation of their view of reality might be wrong. Of course, it could be, but it's not easy for anyone--religionists, scientists, you, me, Mr. Siegel, anyone at all--to admit that.