|a nice list of problems with "flood geology"|
One of the articles above describes questions that children of creationists are to ask in class to point out problems with the theory of evolution. Some of them are completely wrong headed. Others are valid criticisms. (The famous example of butterflies changing their color due to the evolutionary pressures of factory smoke is now recognized as an example of bad science rather than an example of evolution.) For the most part, they seem to be objections to the way evolution is presented to non-experts without recognizing that underneath it lies a whole lot of evidence for evolution that is really difficult to refute.
In any case, some people do still find evidence for creationism more compelling. Another article above refers to a geologist who uses Mt. St. Helens as evidence for the way all of the geological features of the earth could have been formed in less than 10,000. There is a really good site listing problems with that notion at:
Check it out. In some ways, this is analogous to the problems with the theory of evolution listed above. However, I think these problems are more fundamental. It is not merely a question of how the theory is presented to children, but the theory itself which faces nearly insurmountable problems if it is to address these concerns.