Well, if you don't reinterpret certain things in the Scripture, then you have to ignore or deny the observed reality.
For example, if you "allow the Bible to mean what it says" then the earth is flat, has edges, and the firmament (including the Sun) revolves around it. Unavoidably, because this is supported by numerous Biblical passages. It's not an academic splitting hair, presented by some atheist "evo", but a very real problem, which the Christianity (represented back then by the Catholic church) had to face several hundred years ago.
'Creation science' attempts to solve this dilemma by scientific revisionism. This approach may work with people lacking education, but at certain level you simply cannot deny that scientific findings are interconnected. Knowledge from one discipline is applied in another. All is backed by mathematics, and most of it is translated into technology. Despite gaps, things we know are consistent. Revolutionary changes proposed by 'creation science' would make these things suddenly stop matching each other. I am sorry, but when given a choice between reconciling one material evidence with another, and reconciling observed phenomena SEPARATELY with literalist interpretation of the Bible, I have to choose the former. Perhaps a preacher can make another choice, but a scientist can't, otherwise we would be dealing with a dream-like world resembling Alice in the Wonderland, not a reality, which we can understand and alter, according to our will (and per God's wish, by the way).
Nice post. That's one of the things I've long noticed about "creation science"--there are alternative explanations for everything, but they don't fit together. They're all one-off kluges. The accepted explanations, on the other hand all fit together and make sense in context of each other. It's a much stronger package.
you have NO idea what you’re talking about.