I have the strong feeling that for something like two thirds of the creationists, or about 90% of the creationists that constantly debate the subject on internet forums, there would never be any particular set of facts, evidence, or concise explanation, that would convince them that organisms don't just look as if they're related by coincidence/"common functions", but really are. Instead, religious belief takes total primacy. One would have first to become convinced that some religious notion, like Jesus dying on the cross to somehow pay for humankind's sins and save everyone's souls, is compatible with life having evolved naturally, rather than being created by rivers and sand at Yahweh's command. Either that or becoming agnostic/atheist. If that's the case, I think that the perhaps-less-apathetic-than-it-could-be approach of some of the so-called "new atheists" towards people and organizations like Bio-logos (which, AFAIK basically promotes that Christianity is compatible with "standard" natural sciences, no miracles invoked as scientific explanations or conclusions) is deemed to be very counter productive in the advancement of the public acceptance of science. I suspect that many of the scientifically-inclined people would perhaps be "sucked" into atheism/agnosticism, and from there, they'd exert less influence over literalists than they could, from a "common ground". Literalists would have stronger social reinforcement, or less opportunity of "leakage," of potentially scientifically inclined individuals finding others like themselves among "them," or people close to "them", rather than science being just something of the "outgroup" that rejects, often harshly, what they hold as core values or ideas. But I may well be wrong on both things. I'm curious about other people's perceptions, and perhaps there's even some related social research that might give a clue in one way or another.