An issue here is a clash of values, resulting in communication failure. Scientists value truth, whereas for creationists, and all fundamentalists, the central value is the moral cohesion of their community. The key for them is that the Bible provides moral certainty, creating a world view in which children can be protected and raised with strong values. Creationists see their worldview as a tapestry for which the unravelling of one thread will rapidly unweave the whole. To them, science is just a stalking horse for a liberal value-free agenda which promotes critical thinking that subverts community standards. Hence the truth of scientific claims is irrelevant to them, because the creationist ideas are only designed as a defence for a moral community, a way of holding the moral framework together, with the main 'Bible-based' ideas being in the New Testament, not the Old. Genesis is therefore primarily a defence of Saint Paul, not a scientific theory. I personally reject all fundamentalism in favour of critical thought, but see that creationists are often loving, successful and rich, demonstrating that their beliefs are somehow adaptive. Rather than mocking them as stupid, I think it is important for scientists to recognise the social function of creationism instead of approaching it through an epistemic lens. Expecting them to care about scientific truth fails to see the moral agenda which drives their beliefs.