Do scientists ignore Creationist evidence?

I should begin by acknowledging that the majority of people in the world likely do not have an opinion one way or the other when it comes to the "Science vs. Creationism" debate. However, I would imagine that most people who are not 'in the know' will most likely support the guys in the white coats over the book wavers. Also in case anybody was in any doubt, I'll outright state without source that the vast majority of scientists (particularly in the relevant fields) are most emphatically not Creationists in any way, shape or form. With that 'disclaimer', as it were, out of the way, let us begin:

I would imagine that most people who read this will at some time or another have heard or heard about people who accuse scientists of being closed minded when it comes to certain issues. Generally the accusers are those whose beliefs occupy what I shall refer to as fringe areas. They range from alternative medicine advocates who 'believe' in the wonders of homeopathy, chiropractic or similar, to people with certain faith based ideas concerning the age of the Universe, earth and humanity. It is the latter I wish to address here.

If you have ever heard or seen a Creationist talk or quoted then you will no doubt know that they think scientists, in general, ignore data that conflicts with their (the scientists') 'belief' that the earth is old. Very old. They (the scientists) don't want to admit that the evidence points to a young earth and a certain world wide flood (some might say a flood of biblical proportions). Instead scientists cling to radiometric dating, fossils, ice-cores - techniques that give the age of the earth to be around 4 billion years. You know the kind of thing. "But," the Creationists say "What about the human footprints next to dinosaur prints? What about the 'fossilised' boots of miners from the USA? What about all the evidence that points to the earth being only a few thousand years old? What about the marine animals newly dead being dated to tens of thousands of years old by carbon dating?!" You know the kind of thing.

One of the main reasons given for why scientists would do this - ignore the flood evidence and by extension the Creationist god - is that they do not wish to be held accountable to that god (normally Jahweh, sometimes Allah) and want to live a life of sin etc. I'll make it clear: Scientists (who are of course likely to be atheists) do not want to acknowledge Yahweh, favouring instead a debauched and godless existence, living a lie to avoid It and Its teachings. I have to wonder at the thought processes at work to conclude in such a manner. All but the most asinine Creationist (wot there are other kinds?) must agree that the majority of scientists are (academically) fairly bright people: intelligent and educated with a healthy dose of smarts. Not necessarily geniuses in social situations or even able to tie their own shoelaces, but competent when it comes to comprehension and rational thought. Of course the entire Creationist argument is that most scientists are willfully ignorant and/or liars about the nature of the data, but I have no doubt that most will acknowledge the intelligence of their 'opponents'. But scientists being somewhat intelligent surely conflicts with the main Creationist assertion that they have their fingers in their ears, singing "La la la!" and seemingly blind to the 'obvious' reality of the world wide flood etc. I might have just straw-manned, but on balance I think I'm right. If scientists in general are intelligent, then why would they ignore obvious evidence and spurn a Creator who, if certain texts are to be believed, will deal out infinite punishment to those who don't acknowledge It? This does not make any sort of sense. While I am not implying that I'm one of the smarties, I would like to think that I am intelligent enough to understand that I might get my arse kicked by Jesus in the afterlife if I don't ask him to forgive me of my sins. But I don't see the evidence for the Christian (or any) god whatsoever. I'm not ignoring any evidence, I just don't accept the (religiously motivated) conclusions drawn from that data.

So we have a bright group of people who number in the millions who are, according to Creationists, dismissing or ignoring blatant evidence because they want to live a lie. My own opinion is that this assertion is, to be blunt, moronic. I could say it more plainly, but I think you get the picture.

Something that Creationists don't even appear to have considered is that the dismissal of their conclusions - which really means dismissal of their religious beliefs - is nothing personal. I think this is a very important point. They seem to take the assertion from the scientific method that the age of the earth is billions of years as a personal affront to their faith and their god. This is a completely nonsensical and rather egotistical stance: Science is directly attacking them and their beliefs. In reality science is making an unbiased statement of what apparently 'is'. "These rocks are, to the best degree attainable, x billion years old." "This sample is, to the most accurate assessment, y millions years old."

Scientists (by which I actually mean the scientific method) do not dismiss or ignore the Creationist religion alone. In fact they ignore all religion and belief systems. It matters not one jot to the scientific world what a certain set of ancient texts say, as taking those into consideration would be entirely antithetical to the scientific method. To illustrate this I've included the very well known and brilliantly simple cartoon concerning Science 'versus' Creationism.

In helpful arrow form:

Science: Facts → Conclusions.
Creationism: Conclusions → Facts.

Anyone with an ounce of reason and logic under their belt without faith in their eyes will be able to immediately see which method is sound and which has a certain 'issue'. Consider this method being employed in a murder trial: "This guy did it. Does he have an alibi? No? Brilliant, so he could have been at the house and done it. Any finger prints? No? Must have wiped them off before he left, the cunning bugger." etc. You get the idea I'm sure.

It is important to make the point that just because a certain religion is "the norm" in a country it does not mean that it is the starting point for everyone, particularly scientists. In the USA, Creationists are Christian. In the middle east, Creationism is described from a Muslim perspective. Funny that. Of course the arguments are similar, mainly due to the god being the same in both religions, but it is difference is not generally noted by Creationists: We do not all have, or have even had, the same beliefs as them. Personally I've never had a faith, religion or believed in a god of any kind, so my own stance is one of bemusement when I am told that I am denying the existence of Yahweh. Again there appears to be an underlying egocentricity at play which is not entirely healthy in my opinion.

So to reiterate: Science is not concerned that Creationist believe certain things about world formation and what not: It does not care and nor do most scientists. Creationism, and by extension religion, is not at the forefront of most scientists' minds and they do not spend their time actively trying to denying Christianity et al and its assertions. This is a very important point that the apparently self important Creationist should take on board. Their religion is not the only one, their god is not the only proposed god, their faith is not special or unique and their beliefs are not the oldest.

Science doesn't care about them and for Creationists to think that it does only underlines how deluded they really are.