The amount of inference required to understand what is demonstrated there is not large. A bridge of small steps connects fish with elephants in the fossil record. Creationists such as yourself proclaim the lack of expected transitional forms in the fossil record when, upon closer examination, all they can really show is a refusal--their own refusal--to make any inference that leads toward evolution.
The fact of the matter is that nothing to be reasonably expected in the fossil record from evolutionary theory is lacking. Darwin himself figured out and stated nicely that even the rather impoverished fossil record known in his day was about what one would expect. He predicted that as more of the world was explored new fossil finds would further outline the already apparent tree of life and further bolster his theory. He was right in spades. It is total misrepresentation to pretend otherwise.
Often yes, but in some cases, and probably this one, I think it's not quite that. I see it like the way a cuckold will refuse to examine the clues about his wife's misconduct, and will continue to comfort himself that she's faithful to him, and is really out shopping with her girl friends all the time.
Deep down, he suspects that all is not well, and that he's probably deluding himself, but he'd rather not go through the turmoil of confronting reality. He'd have to get a divorce, it would be messy, he'd have an unpleasant time of it, his friends would react badly, etc.
An outside observer, watching the tons of evidence of her infidelity, would think that he'd be better off to clear the decks and be rid of her. But he'd have an empty house, no one to cook for him, that sort of thing. Bad as it is, it's what he's used to, so reality is not what he's ready to deal with.
It's not really Hovind-style misrepresentation. It's just compromise.