The staunchest defenders of the evolution theory sit in places of high esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media. The public is naturally in awe of their prestige.
Professors, scientists and editors (presumably of scientific journals) have an extensive background in science, they are aware of the reams of evidence supporting theories like evolution, gravitation, relativity, etc, and they almost unanimously support evolution as a fact. The opponents of evolution are almost invariably from a more fundamentalist religious background, which is what influences their anti-evolution stance more than anything else.
Macro evolution is far from being a fact.
Speciation is a fact. It has been observed in laboratories and in the wild. Unless you've now chosen a new definition for the rather ill-defined term "macro-evolution", speciation has been directly observed and is therefore true.
In the sciences, people quickly come to regard as their own personal property that which they have learned and had passed on to them at the universities and academies. If someone else comes along with new ideas that contradict what they have learned and in fact even threaten to overturn it, then all passions are raised against this threat and no method is left untried to suppress it.
There is nothing new about either creationism or intelligent design, and these are the only two movements I'm aware of which actually try to paint evolution as anything other than the best-supported scientific theory we have.
In fact, what you've said sounds more like creationists clinging on to any possibility that evolution isn't true and their worldview isn't being challenged by one of the strongest scientific theories ever.
People resist it in every way possible: pretending not to have heard about it; speaking disparagingly of it, as if it were not even worth the effort of looking into the matter.
Like I said, sounds more like what I've observed from creationists!
Common sense can be used to know that the conception of scientific theories are subject to a recognition that scientific methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is approximate, so we can only except the most secure findings of scientists at face value.
Science admits that any and all findings are tentative, and it relies on naturalism, true enough. But there is simply no better way to try and determine reality available to us. Anything else is pure guesswork rather than being an honest study of our surroundings.
Even the so called experts can be wrong.
True enough, though the facts speak for themselves at the moment regardless of expert opinion. The experts just help to put it into terms we can more easily understand and then find out even more about the world around us.
In addition, no amount of wishful thinking is ever going to make the twin-nested hierarchies go away, and those are the single strongest evidence for past evolution that I've ever seen. Even if all the experts suddenly disappeared forever, that evidence wouldn't.
There are multiple laws known in the sciences that can be used to show creation is logical, comprehendible, and that give us an understanding of how the creation sustains life on our planet.
Now this I'd like to see... Can you back that up with anything?
Some seem to argue the issue just for the sake of argument with little knowledge about the subject which is probably why you dont see do much resistance from Christians who might conclude it would be just a waste of their time to do so and just agree to disagree.
Most Christians accept evolution as fact.
There is a lot of resistance to evolution being put forward by prominent creationist groups, but they have nothing new and certainly nothing solid. Most of their arguments have been repeatedly refuted over many years, and some are still in use that were first used when evolution was first set out as a single theory over 150 years ago!
Quite simply, there is nothing credible opposing evolutionary theory at all, just a load of tired arguments that hold no water and some objections on religious grounds that scientists in general aren't interested in hearing.