Many Protestant, and particularly Evangelical, churches, on the other hand, reject Evolution in favor of a literal, rather than figurative, interpretation of the book of Genesis. However, it is typically not specified which version of the creation account is being considered divinely inspired and hence "literally true". This is problematic since there are two such accounts in the Bible (Gen1:1 - Gen2:3 vs. Gen2:4 - Gen50:26) , and they contradict each other in numerous ways. For instance, order in which Adam vs. the Beasts were created differs   between the two accounts.
Of course, none of this is a problem for creationism because it is not (despite its claims to the contrary) a scientific movement. It is a religiously motivated political movement, which is why they publish all of their "research" directly to the general public rather than letting other scientists subject it to peer review. Unfortunately, there are many kinds of arguments which are far more convincing to someone who struggled with grade 11 chemistry than someone who actually studied science at the university level, which is why creationism enjoys more than 50% support from the American public while languishing at less than 1% among scientists.
Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. In an ironic twist, it's the creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.
Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction."  To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself."  While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it.