None of these excerpted questions are controversial. Any scientific issue should cover evidence both for and against.
But evidence against evolution, whatever that may be, does not equate to creationism.
So you’re saying that evidence of a young earth, an orchard of trees instead of a tree of life, no transitional fossils or missing links, evidence of a global flood, etc, etc, should not be placed in the creation science side of the ledger?
The Law of Contrarian Polling states: Given a choice of two positions, at least 10-20% of those polled will agree with either one of them, no matter how illogical it is.