Part one was written by evolutionists and used sources written and "approved" by evolutionists. Part two uses the same strategy.
As Ive said before, people believe what they want to believe. They simply find sources to support it.
Imagine a world where astrologers had their own journals, did their own "experiments", and cited alledged data. An astrologer does some experiment somewhere, forges some data, then presents it to the "peer review" board who reviews it for accuracy.
If the "study" was favorable, then it gets published, and astrologers have even more "evidence" to support astrology. And the reverse would also be true.
These astrologers held their noses in the air, because they had all these prestigious journals, conferences, gave lectures, and taught it in their schools.
Now suppose people were fighting astrology, and they came out with a book titled "Astrologers Confront The Critics". They cited all the studies done to support astrology, came up with reasons studies that showed astrology to be false were flawed, and published t
this book and made millions of dollars.
Im sure deep down inside "scientists" are glad creationism exists. They then can use this "controversy" to write books and do the same thing the astrologers would have done. The book publishers get to sell books, scientists can make a little coin as well and also get some recognition from their peers (hey Im PUBLISHED).
I think its funny. People make money from those wishing to believe in creationism, and others make money from those "fighting" creationism. I mean just look at all the books written. The National Center For Science Education rakes in thousands and thousands of dollars from memberships and book sales. The same is true for the Gish and Henry Morris teams at the Institute for Creation Research, but they are making a little more money (Im sure this pisses off the evolutionists).