You "forgot" to mention that a lot of those believe that God used evolution in order to do it.
I am wondering why evolution has not received more acceptance, since it has been taught in public schools for more than half a century.
Because creationists have lied about it so much that a) a lot of the public has fallen for the dishonest "disproofs" or "evidence against" evolution, b) the straw-man version of evolution presented by the creationists has been mistaken by many for the real thing (just read these threads for many examples) and thus this ridiculous cartoon-version of evolution has been rightly rejected as ridiculous, and c) creationists have been trying to drum up a false "scientific controversy" so much that a lot of the public believes that there must be one, so they're reserving judgment.
In short, it's because of the creationists' "Big Lie" campaign.
In countries where creationists have not embarked on such widespread propaganda campaigns, evolution has very widespread acceptance.
Also, contrary to your implication, evolution is really not taught all that often in American schools except as a passing mention, if at all. Most of the public really has no foundation for forming an informed opinion about evolution in the first place. Those that do ovewhelmingly accept the validity of evolution. A large majority of university students accept evolution, over 90% of scientists accept evolution, and over 99% of biologists accept evolution. The more people actually learn about evolution (and not the creationist straw-man version), the more they accept the truth of it.
And do you *really* want to try to imply that the popularity of an idea determines its truth? The majority of the world's population is *not* Christian, after all.
You mean, as described in this article?
Scientific creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error.
Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.
Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true; whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up when possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate.
Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The "Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them. ...