Either way, creationism is in its death troughs and after thousands of years, it reign has come to an end.
Well, to be fair, there are a lot of different kinds of creationists, and some will likely survive for a long time.
Religious types often sneer at evolution, saying that such a philosophy is cold, godless, immoral etc. Scientists often sneer at creationists, thinking that anyone who believes that woman was literally created from a man's rib, and that a flood once covered the entire planet to a depth of 30,000 feet, is nuts.
But they are both seeing the extremes. There is a whole spectrum of opinions on this, and they exist in more than one dimension. The main axis of belief has to do with what part of the creation story is true. You could break them down like this:
Creation end
----------------
Flat earthers/Geocentrists
Young earth creationists (YEC's)
Old earth creationists (OEC's) (there are a lot of these!)
Theistic evolutionists
Physical evolutionists
Religious-atheist evolutionists
--------------------
Evolution end
1) Geocentrists
The flat earthers/geocentrists believe the Bible so literally that they believe the parts about the Earth being fixed and immovable; the sky is a vault above them below which all the stars and planets move. There are actually people out there like this, but they are pretty few in number, since the mental gymnastics required to believe that GPSes work on a fixed planet are pretty extreme. But these people do exist, and they have organizations. Which makes sense; there are people who believe so fervently in the exact wording of the Bible that they see their belief in the face of science as a badge of honor.
But most creationists are not like this.
2) YEC's
YEC's believe in a somewhat literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that life was created in six 24-hour days, that death came as a result of Adam & Eve's fall in the garden, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of the Deluge. However, they accept a heliocentric solar system and a round earth. One variant on this is the Omphalos argument, dating back to the 1850's. This variant claims the earth was _created_ to look old but is really quite new.
YEC is probably the most popular form of creationism today, because it requires the least compromise in a strict interpretation of the Bible. You can keep 90% of the Bible, discarding only the most outlandish things (fixed earth) as metaphor.
3) OEC's
OEC's essentially mix a belief in creationism with an acceptance of a planet that is billions of years old. They do so by turning more of the bible into metaphor; each 'day' of creation was billions of years, for example. This results in some odd accomodations of science and religion, but it allows more flexibility. Not as much science must be discarded to reach an acceptable compromise of belief.
One variant of this is "day-age" where each day of creation is a long period, as mentioned above. Another variant is the gap theory, where millions (or billions) of years elapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
A third important variant of OEC's are progressive creationists, who accept much of conventional planetary formation, and even some evolution theories, but claim God created life at certain points. A common form of this is that God created life, and then some time much later, he took an ape and turned it into a man.
The latest in progressive creationism is intelligent design, where the history of the planet, including the development of life, proceeded as science has described it, but along the way God 'helped out.' This is then presented as a scientific theory by attempting to prove that no other explanation for life is possible. This has become immensely popular because it is seen as a way to "attack science with science."
4)Theistic evolution
This is quite similar to intelligent design, but is important in that it has been espoused by the Pope and taught at many Protestant seminaries. Basically God creates through evolution. It proceeds pretty much as science describes it, but God is guiding it. This is a fairly defensible position because it can effectively be 'redefined' as science learns more about the process of evolution; it can me made to not conflict with new science as long as there is some uncertainty (which will almost certainly always be the case.)
5)Physical evolution
These people believe that evolution is a physical process, guided by the principles first established by Darwin, but since greatly refined. They often believe in God as well, but feel that he does not generally meddle in simple physical processes. Any such meddling must be discovered and proven before it is taken seriously, as with any other scientific theory. Most scientists take a position similar to this one.
6)Religious-atheist evolution
This is a pseudo-religious position that states that not only is evolution not directed by God, the fact that evolution occurs is proof God does not exist. They feel that every new discovery of science (the heliocentric theory, paleontology, cosmology etc) is another nail in God's coffin. Few scientists actually believe this, although the 'battle' is often framed by creationists as a battle between themselves and religious-atheist evolutionists.
That's a pretty simplified one-dimensional span of beliefs in the creationism-evolution argument. Often, creationists feel anyone who does not believe in Genesis is by definition a religious-atheist evolutionist; just as often scientists feel that anyone who does not believe in evolution is a flat-earther. But that's a fallacy, and leads to a lot of people not listening to each other.
There are some orthogonal directions that also have to do with creationism/evolution:
A) Non-christian creation stories
The Islamic creation story is somewhat similar to the Genesis story; they claim Genesis is a corrupted version of the Koran's version. The Vedic story (Hindu) has humans existing for billions of years. American Indians have a great many creation stories. There are literally dozens of accounts of creation from cultures throughout the world; they tend to be similar along geographic lines (i.e. the Egyptian story is similar to the biblical one; the Norse one isn't so similar.) The plethora of creation stories can lead to problems when a creationist group succeeds in having "alternatives to evolution" taught as science. Which one to teach?
B) NOMA
This theory, which stands for "non-overlapping magisteria" is a term used to describe the beliefs of many scientists who believe strongly in God but also work on the science of evolution. Religion and science are two completely different fields, and thus one simply does not affect the other. Religious creation stories are works intended to teach the readers about the importance of worshipping God, his power etc and are not intended to be literal accounts of how the world was created. Likewise, proof that evolution follows strictly physical processes is not an attack on God since science does not describe religious belief, morals, behavior, definitions of sin etc.
C) Ignorance
This sounds bad, but it's really not. There are people out there who believe strongly in the biblical story of creationism AND the science behind planetary formation, evolution, plate tectonics etc. These beliefs can coexist because they have never really studied either one intensively. As an example, I once talked to someone who believed the earth (and man) was created in seven days billions of years ago. He thought this consistent with both biblical teachings and science. When I pointed out the fossil record of life, with man appearing fairly late in the game, he said "hmm, that doesn't sound right, I should check that." When I asked him if he really thought that man has been around for five billion years, living through the evolution and extinction of the dinosaurs, he said he had to check his Bible about that. He thought it mentioned that.
Rather than an indication of a lack of intelligence, I see this as someone with better things to do than study the Bible and evolutionary theory.
c) Incredulity
This argument, the argument from personal incredulity, is also somewhat orthogonal to the main line of creationism/evolution. Instead of claiming that God did X because of Y, they claim that "I cannot understand how the HOX gene could be the same in flies and man; therefore, it is not understandable because God works in mysterious ways. Hence the action of the hand of God is clear here." It's similar to the ignorance approach, but more formalized.
A final comment is that the above axes are not intended to attempt to define people's individual feelings on the role of creationism vs evolution - rather, they define how some groups (like the intelligent design group) define themselves. There is a continuum of belief along that axis and in many others (like the axis that goes from science and belief being tightly coupled to them not having anything to do with each other.)
