the human mind does not have an inherently rational understanding of reality. one's understanding of what is normal, not only on a logical level, but a subconscious, gut-feeling level, is molded by the culture that it is raised by. when you are raised like this, you will almost always refuse to accept conflicting logic, even if to any rational bystander, you are absolutely off your rocker.
the reason there are still creationists is because they were raised on such ideas, and it is extremely cognitively difficult for them to rationalize science which contradicts their dogma. it's not their fault, in my opinion- they had no say in how they were raised.
nowadays, science is no longer considered heretical as a whole. it is considered respectable and prestigious in the mainstream. modern creationists, raised in this culture, must rationalize how their beliefs and science do not contradict. they achieve this by 1 of 2 methods.
method 1: they deny the validity of scientific fields of research that conflict with their beliefs, and they develop pseudoscientific hypotheses to solidify their faith in the modern world. this is best seen as the rise of "intelligent design". a pseudoscientific modernization of creationism which claims to be secular despite only having funding which is religious in origin.
method 2: they remain laymen towards their religion, science, or both. that way, they never see the conflicts themselves, and their bubble is left intact. ignorance is bliss.
despite painfully obvious evidence suggesting the earth being billions of years old, and rife with life created by natural selection, these people grasp at anything that can support their denialism. they will hold up the improbability of life happening by chance, yet willfully disregard the many contradictions that riddle their religion.
i'm not being a fedora neckbeard by saying this. western nations are already losing their theological shackles; western political theory is almost completely secular.
science is different from ideology and theology in that it is built upon readily seeking a more accurate explanation of reality. our limited capacity for accepting radical change in beliefs (as i explained earlier) makes this difficult, even within the forefront of the scientific community. nevertheless, while a science-dominated society may periodically be corrupted by the interests of those that rule, it will naturally gravitate towards the truth. this is why modern europe is dominated by liberal (not the modern subset definition of the word) democracies.
that being said, i am not advocating for a society ruled by atheistic scientists, let me make that very clear. most modern religious denominations are benign, and even helpful for their communities; as they have lost much of the power they once had, there is little left to corrupt. scientists are just as susceptible to corruption and ignorance as any other person; they're not better than their peers. they simply work under a framework of logic which is built upon changing to suit reality. in this way, they're as molded as the zealot who insults them on youtube. the only difference is that the zealot's in active denial of any contradiction to his beliefs.
