I don't see the problem that this person is having. He is criticizing YEC'ers for being too scientific -- presenting the results of research? Because they are only reporting the results of their data? Isn't that supposed to be what science does, especially good science?
Th problem is that ID assumes that lack of explanation is support for ID. Tell me when in the history of science the current lack of a complete naturalistic explanation has been positive evidence for supernatural intervention.
This seems to be the modus operandi for YEC contributors at GSA and AGU meetings. Steve Austin and Kurt Wise regularly give talks and posters at GSA but they are strictly "scientific" in nature. When Austin describes a sedimentary bed covered by ammonite fossils, he makes no mention of the "Flood" as the presumed cause of the "mass kill". Nevertheless, YEC's can then say that they are publishing with respected organizations.
This agrees with my own observations. While Baumgardner subscribes on YEC sites to all sorts of wild theories of a young earth, he has co-authored at least one paper in Science charting the evolution of plate tectonics over a >100 million year time scale. I don't know how he sleeps at night. Maybe we could add The Conscience of a Creationist to the list of the world's shortest books?