It's kinda funny. And kinda tragic.
Professor Michael Reiss, an evolutionist, ordained clergyman and formerly Director of Education for The Royal Society gave a talk in which he pointed out that there are children who have been brought up believing that the cosmos is the product of divine creation. And he pointed out that simply telling them that their parents, pastors, imams and ideas are wrong, wrong, wrong and they themselves are stupid tends not to persuade them to consider the evidence for evolution. And he pointed out that it might be worth, if they raise the issue, actually discussing their presuppositions (a.k.a. worldview) and how it differs from The Scientific Method™.
Apparently this is too preposterous to even be considered. We have Nobel prize winners and politicians who vehemently object to science teachers pointing out that these kids are looking for answers in a fundamentally different way. Discussions of epistemology and the means by which we arrive at truth are so unrelated to science that the poor professor was forced to resign.
The big question that remains unanswered seems to be: If the "scientific community" are so committed to truth and the careful weighing the evidence, why is it that none of those attacking Reiss appear to have any real comprehension of his position? If they have such scant regard for evidence, how seriously can anyone take their denunciation of creationism?
(FWIW, I'm far from convinced that evolution is an adequate explanation for the existence or the complexity of life.)