Make no mistake, "Creation Science" is a joke and most creationists have a terribly misguided idea about what the theory of evolution is, much less the evidence for or against it. Evolutionary theory itself is pretty solid and becoming more so every year. The chief errors of creationists lie in believing that evolution implies improvement and in refusing to accept the evidence that mutations can sometimes be beneficial.
The average liberal, however, also believes that evolution implies improvement — although the very idea of "improvement" relies on an intelligent observer, and evolution is merely a natural process without any goal. Charles Darwin found that a species adapts to its environment, which only means that those who adapt best are most likely to survive, and with the gradual accumulation of mutations they may even gain new characteristics not present in the original species. It says nothing about whether those adaptations are good for individuals or even sustainable for the species. Consider, for example, the passenger pigeon — a bird that was fabulously successful until its sheer numbers made it such a nuisance that humans conspired to kill them — and accidentally drove them to extinction.
It is here where creationists understand natural selection better than the majority of liberals, because creationism is associated with religious texts written over many generations by authors who observed human nature, both strengths and weaknesses. Where many evolutionary "believers" assume that natural selection is too slow to be relevant to humanity, the average creationist knows better. They know that if we create an environment where grifters, liars, and thieves thrive at the expense of honest, loving and productive people, then grifters, liars and thieves will increase — and the honest, loving and productive will decrease.
Sure, many of the evolutionary theorists who understand historical evolution best tend toward liberal beliefs, but the average liberal takes their belief in the theory of evolution ... on faith, presuming that researchers have been both capable and honest in their work. In that respect, they are not really much different from the average creationist who takes their belief on faith in a holy book and those who have interpreted it in an overly literal way.
When it comes to how these beliefs affect us today, however, the creationists come out ahead. Whether dinosaurs lived 10,000 years ago or 100 million years ago is a moot point when it comes to our daily lives, but the incentives we create and how they shape society can have profound and immediate effects.
It is largely happenstance that creationists also tend to harbor beliefs about certain incentives, itself a reminder that natural selection is blind and can select for both beneficial and harmful traits together. Many in the working class who hold creationist beliefs have pursued practical knowledge, and not having been thoroughly indoctrinated in schools simply look around and see for themselves how incentives have shaped their own communities — often by enabling the worst elements and hampering the best. As influential liberals tend to huddle in their own enclaves removed from the working class, they often miss what is happening in other neighborhoods — and even when they see they lack context and frequently misunderstand.
But even if creationists refuse to believe that mutations can add new elements to a species' genetic repertoire, most accept that natural selection applies to humans, and that rewarding bad behavior will result in worse behavior. In the environment in which we actually live that is far more important that having a more accurate knowledge of pre-history.