If you remember, in part one I introduced the basics of the JA. I also made mention that my adversary had a "a very polished apologistic agenda". I want to briefly expand on that point before continuing. What many people, religionists and non-believers, don't fully grasp is the importance of the Theory of Evolution and why some Creationists or IDers cling so tightly to their refusal to accept science.
In an article titled "Were There Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?", Jeffrey Goldberg writing for The Atlantic spoke with Ken Ham and Terry Mortenson of AIG. The gist of both men can be summarized by the following. 
As Goldberg notes, Mortenson stayed on the subject of gay marriage.
While Goldberg seems to have a simplistic view of the controversy, "I found this preoccupation with gay marriage significant, because it suggests that perhaps at least some of those who profess a belief in creationism might simply be signaling their preference for a more traditional social order, rather than a rejection of modern science and free intellectual inquiry." I beg to differ based on Ham's own words.
From Ham's 2002 posting, "The Evolution Connection": 
Many Christians, including most Christian leaders, don’t understand the connection of evolution to the social ills of our culture and the difficulties in getting people interested in Christianity. They see evolution as something totally separate from such issues. I think the main reason for this misunderstanding is because many Christians have been indoctrinated to believe that evolution is factual science.What people need to keep in mind is what Ham means by "authority" and how and where it is applied. In the Christian theocratic mind-set, that authority is their particular simplistic interpretation of what the Bile states devoid of any actual hermeneutical principles. In other words they are biblical "letteralists".  Some day I may revisited that premise, but for now I am safe in saying there really is an apologistic agenda to those with a "polished" ID presentation.
It is true that most evolutionary scientists, the media and the average public school textbook today present atheistic (perhaps subtly rather than overtly) evolution as fact. Students are taught that the universe and all life arose by strictly material causes. God is not given any place in the ‘origin of anything.’ Over the years, the teaching of evolution has intensified in our school systems and through the media. So much so that the average person believes that scientists have proved the earth is billions of years old and that the different forms of life arose through an evolutionary process of death and struggle.
The more evolutionary ideas pervade the culture, the more a person’s whole way of thinking will change. For them, right and wrong will be whatever they determine for themselves, if they can get away with it. If they are just an animal, then no-one owns them, so their body is their own. Thus, why can’t they do what they want with sex? Also, if this life is all there is, and death ends it all, then if things get tough, why not commit suicide now and get out of it—after all, a person won’t remember they ever had life, so what’s the point anyway? And, if we get rid of spare animals by killing them, then what’s wrong with getting rid of spare babies by abortion?
Some people misunderstand me when I say there’s a connection between evolution and these social ills mentioned above. I’m not saying that evolution is the cause of abortion or school violence. What I am saying is that the more a culture abandons God’s Word as the absolute authority, and the more a culture accepts an evolutionary philosophy, then the way people think, and their attitudes, will also change. I’m not saying that a student says to himself, ‘Now, I’m just an animal—I know evolution is true—therefore there’s no basis for right or wrong—so there’s nothing to stop me from shooting my teacher.’
In other words they want what the Kleins and Kim Davis want.  In essence,
They want what Ted Cruz  wants and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  Yes, I am talking about Dominionist. Listen to the 3 characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:
It is an ideology that has been well polished and implemented within the ranks since, at least, 1982 when the failures of the Religious Right were examined and the need to "reconstruct" the church began. 
I know I went a bit off-topic today, but it is relevant especially in light of recent headlines. Dan Arel's battle with AIG's, Ark Encounter - Kentucky bill looks to extend summer vacation to promote creationism.  Dan Courtney and Katherine Stewart's ongoing battle with the Good News Club infiltrating schools.  Or, Roy Moore's continued fight with the supremacy of SCOTUS rulings. 
I can't say for sure that Michael's agenda goes quite this deep but his association with the Discovery Institute makes his motivations suspect. Religionists can not "lose" this battle as I mentioned prior, to do so would undermine the whole of Christianity. It is a battle they have been waging since the 1968 Epperson trial , through Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)  and more recently the 2006 Kitzmiller trial. The Reich's tactics might change but the desired outcome is still the same.
How do I know this, because Phillip E. Johnson admitted as such as the architect of the Wedge Document: 
I promise that next week to get back to dismantling the JA but I think y'all may understand why fighting against such bullshit is important. Nothing is as simple as the creationist loons make it out to be. It has nothing to do with "it's just a belief" or simple denial of science and much to do with manipulation and control.
 I have prior spoken about the hermeneutical principles I still adhere to from my bile-thumping days http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/12/no-homos-in-my-church-pt-1.html
Back in 1983 or 1984 (maybe even 1985 things are kind of a blur going back that far), I was taught that there were two prominent, overall thought processes in regards to biblical interpretation. The "literal view" asserts that a biblical text should be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context; its meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors. The second process is what my professor referred to as the "letteral view" of interpretation. In essence it is a strict almost legalistic point of view. A good example, that illustrates both views, Christ versus the Pharisees. Within the Bible, the Pharisees are seen as people who place the letter of the law above the spirit (cf. Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6) In concluding his 5-part presentation on the Arrogance of Creationists, KC in part 3 talks about how Creationists love to use vague and misleading terminology which leads to equivocation and moving the goal posts. This equivocation, as KC explains is due to that same view concerning authority that both Ham and Mortenson both have, "in the case of most creationists it is because of a dogmatic adherence to a literal interpretation of their sacred texts,,,. Discourses in science are not centered around learning but to rationalize that which they adhere to as unquestionable." [paraphrased]
In other words, we have one big circle-jerk: 1] the Bible is inerrant and authoritative in all things (science included); 2] this leads to equivocation and shifting the goal-posts; 3] in order to rationalize their dogmatic adherence the Bible.
 http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/4/3/155629/6754 Christian Reconstructionism is often described as the movement that wants to execute adulterers, blasphemers, and homosexuals, by stoning. Since this is not likely to happen any time soon, the movement is often dismissed as fringe and inconsequential. The preoccupation with the stoning aspect has obscured the fact that many other foundational components of the movement have been mainstreamed in the Religious Right since the time when Gary North wrote the following words.
Gary North writing in the first volume of the journal Christianity and Civilization, published by the Geneva Divinity School in Spring, 1982. The entire issue was dedicated to a symposium on "The Failure of American Baptist Culture." http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/cc_1/cc_1.html (40-25)
 Susan Epperson challenged the Arkansas law that prohibited public school teachers from teaching, or using textbooks that teach, human evolution.
 Which held that traditional creationism is a religious doctrine that cannot be taught in public school biology classes.
 Bohlin, Ray, ed. (2000). Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science: Probing the Headlines That Impact Your Family. Foreword by Phillip E. Johnson. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, p. 5.
Other Images used: