It's funny, there are so many nit-picks creationists throw at evolution: irreducible complexity; micro-evolution occurs, but macro-evolution isn't possible through the processes of micro-evolution; etc... Usually creationists adhere to any or all of them. Of course, this is a terrible way to refute a scientific theory. You can't nit-pick a theory to death, you have to propose a better alternative. A theory which is produces falsifiable predictions that better explain and predict natural phenomena. Because they can't do this, they try to find "cracks in the wall of evolutionary theory."
The funny thing about both of these nit-picks is that they are founded upon a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. There is no dichotomy between micro and macro-evolution. Speciation can occur in one generation or millions. All that's required is a reproductive isolation mechanism- be it genetic or environmental. As for irreducible complexity, Behe's own calculations do not take into account natural selection, an obvious and important component of evolution.
I used to do research in cotton polyploid and Drosophila evolution. In both cases, I saw evolution taking place and also recognized it's foot print in the form of phylogenetic relationships which matched known spacial dispersion events. For people to utterly ignore a very well supported theory on the basis of their personal, religious belief is something I just can't understand. I know many people who, while very commited to their religion, do not object to evolutionary theory in general. I just don't understand why this is still a debate in society.
I think it has to do with the low level of scientific understanding in the general population. Getting back to the OP, this lack of understanding is a problem for everyone and is why non-experts can make un-supported claims sound factual. If people don't have even a basic understanding of biology, how can they really understand what's being discussed? Recently, I had a woman tell me she doesn't eat GMO food because "she doesn't want to eat plants with DNA in them." Another person said that she felt bad for the animals the scientists took DNA from to make GMO's because then they wouldn't have DNA any more. Both these statements are built on a complete missunderstanding of basic molecular biology. There are valid reasons to avoid GMO's, but these certainly aren't among them...
Here's the question though, who's to blame- is it scientists, the media, politiions or the people who don't educate themselves?
EDIT:
I wanted to add that I don't necessarily think that everyone who is a creationist has a poor understanding of the scientific method or science in general. I have a very dear friend that just graduated with a PhD in Cellular Biology who is a creationist. However, she doesn't reject evolution because she feels it is scientifically inaccurate. Instead, she is a biblical literalist and feels that refuses to consider ideas which, as she puts it, "are not in concordance the bible." In this case, her faith is so strong that she simply cannot deviate from it. I respect this, even though I don't agree.
