What are the arguments for scientific polemics?

Discussing with creationist groups, it became clear to me that at the end of most conversations we arrive to the following conclusion:

I can not convince you of my beliefs, and you can not convince me of yours. The most that we can be is polite, friendly and wish good luck, but consensus is quite impossible. And as science is in some way imposed on them, what could we do to be less repulsive to them?

I was thinking about what would be the kinds of arguments that we, the "defenders of science and the oppressed", can have in this discussion with the creationist that they could accept a little better. Then I saw that we are only arguing with the scientific method, scientific evidence, and so on, and we are not advancing much to convince a little more the creationists that science should define some activities such as the curriculum of basic education.

So I drew up the argument that science is the "natural philosophy" which won power in the practical implementation, development and welfare of society. Or it is wide agreeded that science should be generally applied to practical issues of society under the supervision of the state. Because the social welfare state has to implement policies that bring more welfare, and etc, etc.

I initially believe that this argument can be accepted in some degree by the creationist, or a part thereof. I'll test it at these forums over the internet.

Now, even if this argument is accepted initially, to me the power of influence of science must be acceptably implemented in the form of scientific institutions to ensure the credibility of performance of scientists. In my opinion any action, government, or structure that are dominant in society, works in the form of institutions. I find this argument a little more friendly to the conservative people, as institutions generally give the impression of established activity, stable, and in a "democracy society" has to have credibility to function (I do not know if it is true, but the creationist are often labeled as conservative ).

At last, in the current stage of the rights of the citizens, consumer, etc, the institutions with greater credibility and acceptance are those that works well and in addition, also has a well-defined institutional treatment for critical and complaints. That is, even if the complaint is not very well founded, the institution must have a channel to hear that criticism in a more acceptable way to the client.

Further the science is in some way a monopoly, so the creationist must have a channel to complain, because even we want to or not, the science is imposed on them (for their luck) on various subjects.

This is where I think the "defenders of science" (me included) do not know more palatable arguments and provide guidelines for further acceptable discussion to creationism. As I think we are the good guys-makers and advocates of science to humanity with our best scientific method and reasoning, we could provide a better communication channel to deal with the "creationist misconceptions." But we have not done so already! (My opinion)

And finally, here is a merit that we can somehow arrive on if we bring the creationist for a better terms discussion, because we have some advance in the treatment of the scientific controversies, enhancing our credibility. The other merit is that I believe that making clear the status of science in society, its stability as a modern institution and its internal institutional procedures for the reception of criticism, I think that science will acquire a more democratic and less arrogant appearance to the "commom people".