Nope, not a case of insecurity. Yes, I think your description is a good one -- but only until the creationist is confronted with some cold hard facts. At that point, the creationist is faced with some intellectual decisions that must be made; and all kinds of psychological mechanisms come into play.
Not exactly--those cold, hard facts are, for the most part, ignored or brushed off in comparision to the "vast" amount of creationist literature out there. I'd even make phone calls to AiG if I had a question about something (always very nice staff), and they'd either answer or fax me something.
Plus, creationists are naturally biased against
anything from "scientists" (see the list below). The only cure, IMHO, is total immersion in the world of peer review, and really understand how science and scientists work. The first step is disabusing yourself of the misconception of scientists:
- Scientists are far more conscientious, as opposed as to holding onto Haeckel frauds and the Piltdown Man.
- Scientists are genuinely seeking for the truth, and will give you a Nobel prize for proving a young earth--as opposed to covering it up.
- Scientists readily adapt their theories to fit the data, not the other way around.
- Scientists don't have a political/Marxist agenda. Indeed, look at all the conservative scientists posting here...
- Scientists aren't necessarily anti-religious.
- Scientists are the most boring people in the world, the majority of whom couldn't get laid. Thus, they don't believe in evolution in order to carry on immoral lives.
Once you get past that barrier, you begin reading peer review articles with an open heart. Thus, any links you give the creationists here will automatically be rejected as being a product of immoral, fraud-loving men--or dismissed in favor of specious creationist evidence.