These people do not want to protect the sanctity of marriage -- they want to throw homosexuals in jail. They do not want to protect the unborn -- they want to restrict sex completely to religiously sanctioned heterosexual marriages and restrict its purpose to procreation. They do not want all views equally expressed -- they continually demonstrate not only a rabid desire to force their beliefs on others, but they want to prohibit as much as possible contrary views. They restrict behavior, private as well as public, to a very small set they find acceptable; they would even limit political discourse and debate to within a very narrow range of acceptable viewpoints. These people want to impose a Christian version of Sharia on the U.S., and creationism is simply one facet of their overall agenda. We fight creationism as part of a larger fight to protect overall the right of people's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including the right to determine how they shall pursue their own happiness.
This post really won't add much to this thread, everyone has already elucidated most concisely any points I'd put forth, except to say that what's quoted above, to me, is the most prescient argument expressed yet. The fields of science shouldn't have to defend themselves in the face of arguments without evidence but the very underpinnings of a free American society really do hinge on overcoming this baseless attack. We're staring into the face of an anti-enlightenment and the social repercussions of introducing religion into science curriculums and public law making would be horribly far reaching. Anyway, to resond to the OP: that's why I post on these forums and that's why I, and many folks of like mind, am a stringent defender of scientific method in my interactions with people.