AiG take a great many words to tell a very simple story.
Their presupposition is "We know the conclusion, so we must interpret evidence in ways that support it."
The natural consequence of this is of course that evidence that can't be so interpretted (e.g. retro-viral insertions, the human/ape chromosomal fusion event, etc. etc.) don't get a look in.
Telling also is the
misrepresentation of the evidence that sometimes has to take place to support creationism - anyone remember Kent Hovind and his sunflower Cytochrome C?
You can't call that science by any stretch of the imagination.