Gentry's work has not been refuted - though your side does a good job of presenting stretches of the imagination as refutation.
PH College's worldview statement is what it is. If you're a Christian, you're expected to act like one. Embracing science doesn't mean embracing evolution. Evolution is not science. It attempts to put on heirs to that extent; but, it's a belief system - not science. PH merely acknowledges that If you're going to be a Christian in a Christian school you're going to do so in a Christian context. Science is in no way threatened by this. Lest we forget, most of the branches of modern science were started by Christian creationists. Christians are no more threatened by science now than they ever have been - they're rather intrigued by it and enthused at how much science bears up what the Bible says. So, you're essentially saying, you agree that discrimination is a proper activity to involve oneself in for defense of one's belief system.. Just what I was arguing - and what I showed. Thank you.
You discounted two of five, btw - didn't deal with Dini; but, given your approach to Patrick Henry College, I'm sure you could just say "so what". You've illustrated what you presumed to protest. Bad day?
I agree that some christians aren't threatened by science, but those who espouse biblical inerrancy are threatened by all forms of rationality. If you sign up in advance to one interpretation as PH insists then you aren't conducting science.
I forgot Dini, but I don't want to be treated by modern medics who reject science either. (quite different from rejecting historical figures who either knew nothing of evolution, or who were not aware of the strength of its case.
What I illustrated was the poverty of the case for science suppressing anti-evolution evidence, something which is thin on the ground. Your best shot at that appeared to be Gentry's feeble assertions.