AiG's Strategy: Indoctrinate and Isolate

I read the Drs. position a bit differently.I read him as saying the following:That the Bible is true is a given. So what the Bible says is right. The evidence, when interpreted correctly also supports the Bible, but it is possible to become confused.The process for getting unconfused, according to Ham and Purdom, is to read the Bible, and then, only for those who understand science at all, to get a Creation Scientist to explain what the science really says. Other, secular sources may be wrong or lying.Perhaps the above seems little different from your take. But it does not require that the Dr. Dino and Dr. Purdom are lying or trying to isolate. They are trying to innoculate, but they honestly do see their vision of the Bible as the absolute truth.I really don't see anything new about the strategy.

It is necessary to deal with the evidence, because the alternative is to believe that the external world is complete lie. The real world cannot be avoided by staying in church 24/7. AiG's position is that the Bible does conform to the evidence, but that secular sources distort the evidence. I don't see the contradiction. Creationists believe that evolution is perpetrated by liars and that it is not true science. Why would they want those lies taught to their children in a way that makes them seem plausible? Creation Scientists would not believe or agree that biology books accurately portraying the evidence. That's our description of the textbooks.I am not questioning your description of what Creationists do. But I do question your description of their mindset.Perhaps Ham ultimately is a dissembling and his motives are dishonest, but I don't believe you can demonstrate it using the evidence you've given.

I agree that it would be just fine to give Intelligent Design the same kind of speculation and pass that the SETI Institute gets in the science books. But I highly doubt that many ID folks would like the result; any such coverage would surely be highly dismissive.However, with regards to testability, none of those things you mentioned is taught as a theory with the exception of evolution, which of course is testable to the point of being a theory. I assume that the theory of evolution is what you refer to as Darwinism, but I cannot be sure.