Luciferous,
If you're alleging that intelligent design proponents wish to infer a higher intelligence simply because they observe complexity in the universe, then you haven't really heard what they're saying. That's a parody and oversimplification of what they actually say.

Pericles,
I would agree that the actions of the Nazis were perhaps consistent with their stated philosophy. But they were out of step with reality when it comes to moral justification. Their atrocities and genocide were abhorrent in face of the commandment not to murder, and the principle of all men being created equal; all are made in God's image. 

So you are correct that internal consistency is not enough. Just as I already said above, we would also want to assess whether a particular idea or model is consistent with and adequate to account for the evidence at hand.

Luciferous says we need to take into account all the evidence. While this may be the goal, the reality is that science is always adjusting and reassessing its theories as new evidence comes to light. Researchers are gathering new data continually and also opening new avenues of investigation. And I doubt we'll soon reach the end of all mysteries.

Of course creationists are concerned with their theories matching the greatest amount of available data. If you or Luciferous think that creationists are not concerned with currently observed data, then you're not reading enough of what they're saying. A cursory look at 'The Answers' book will demonstrate that creationist are quite intent on investigating and assessing the latest evidence, as well as explaining how it fits with their models.

You are right to say, "While this may be the goal, the reality is that science is always adjusting and reassessing its theories as new evidence comes to light." Dan S de Merengue... but I don't agree with this:

"Of course creationists are concerned with their theories matching the greatest amount of available data."

I say that having read, not cursorily glanced at, 'The Answers'.

Creationists are concerned with theorising about ways to explain evidence which doen't match their 'theory' of literalism.

BTW you are not correct to simply say "all are made in God's image" since (apparently) according to 'The Answers' (p.36) this is one of "The rare pieces of poetry (e.g. Genesis 1:27 and 2:23) [even though it is a] comment on real events anyway,..."

This is in the same paragraph — as what I can only describe (in the sense of “vendre des canard à moitié”) — as the canard of "Even if
Genesis were poetic, it would not necessarily make it non-historical."

So everything's 'real' whether it is or not — by assertion.

Which is one way of "explaining how it fits with their models."

But that is not the point, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, I would agree that the actions of the Nazis were perhaps consistent with their stated philosophy. But they were out of step with reality when it comes to moral justification.<<

You have chosen to apply an external moral judgement on Himmler's activities, which is of course your right. As it is for everyone else, to make their own assessment of those actions in the light of their own worldview.

What you cannot do, of course, is to avoid the reality that Himmler acted according to his own set of beliefs, abhorrent as they may be. Similarly, the authors of the Creation Answers Book remain true to their specific belief system. You asked me to address their "arguments" within the framework of that system...

>>So you are correct in speaking of the need to put yourself 'in their shoes' if only momentarily, for the sake of argument. Only then can you assess whether that view (with its preconditions) is consistent and adequate in accounting for the evidence at hand.<<

In putting yourself in Himmler's shoes, if only momentarily, you are forced to accept that his actions were both consistent and adequate with his views, "with its preconditions".

Unsavoury as the example may be, it does highlight the futility of ignoring reality (or morality) when assessing the value of one particular view of life, the universe and everything. While I admire the Answers as being a carefully-thought-through apologia for creationism, it is highly selective in the "evidence" that it chooses to refute.

And also lacks the dimension of the rational, external judgement that you - quite correctly, in my view - applied to my Himmler example. But you cannot have it both ways, I'm afraid, choosing to apply the measurement to only one and not to the other.

Pericles,
Himmler may have been self consistent, yet he was out of step with (moral) reality, we both agree.

Yet I understand your criticism as saying that if a view is judged entirely by its own terms and preconditions then as such it can never be wrong. Put like this I would agree. But such is the nature of arguments and philosophical frameworks, which all carry numerous assumptions and presuppositions, and so lend themselves to the criticism of some degree of circularity and self fulfilment. So I think we agree, there does need to be a reality check.

Creationists recognise and openly state their (biblical) presuppositions, which are reasonable in the circumstances. It is unfair to accuse them of avoiding reality. As 'The Answers" book shows, they submit their ideas to the test by measuring them against the reality of the evidence.

If they're not applying themselves to the objective evidence, then you're welcome to say which part of it.

Thanks you for the invitation, Dan S de Merengue.

>>If they're not applying themselves to the objective evidence, then you're welcome to say which part of it.<<

If it is ok with you, I'll start with Chapter 1, and work forwards.

"Atheistic evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith acknowledged of Hitler:‘The German Führer … is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to
make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’ Many millions have suffered terribly and lost their lives because of
this atheistic way of thinking." The Creation Answers Book Ch 1 p.9

If I read this correctly, it draws the conclusion - "millions have suffered terribly and lost their lives" from the objective evidence that Hitler believed in evolution.

Perhaps you can fill in the detail that the authors missed: the logic that murdering millions of Jews was the result of a belief in evolution.

The way I see it, there are quite a number of people who a) accept evolution theory and b) have not killed a single person in their entire lives. But perhaps you see it differently.

There are of course many assertions that are not supported by any form of evidence, objective or otherwise:

"And it is true that, if there is no God, no Creator who sets the rules, then we are set adrift morally" The Creation Answers Book Ch 1 p.7

Given the history of Christianity, what objective evidence do you think the authors could have provided, to justify the phrase "it is true that..."

There are quite a few similar assertions in Chapter 1 that I could pick up on, but let's see how we go with this one first.

Pericles,
 - You ask what objective evidence do you think the authors of the Creation Answers Book could have provided to justify the phrase 'it is true that if there is no God, no Creator who sets the rules, then we are set adrift morally'?

The authors have given various evidences from history, including some graphs on page 10,
"Some social statistics for Australia, showing a relationship between decline of church involvement of children and increased social problems. Other statistics, such as divorce, rape, etc., show similar trends. Church influence declined dramatically with the introduction of evolution into schools in the 1950s and 60s. Statistics for other ‘Christian’ countries show similar relationships.3
3. Sources of data: Childhood church contact from Why don’t people go to church? National Church Life Survey (2002). Social stats from State of the Nation: a century of change, The Centre for Independent Studies, St Leonards, NSW (2001) <www.cis.org.au>"

 - You ask to show the link between the murder of millions of Jews and belief in evolution.

The connection was evident in "his [Hitler's] desire for the ‘Aryan race’ to win the battle for ‘the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’ (the subtitle to Darwin's Origin)." p.11. That there was much time and distance between Darwin and Hitler means that the link is not immediately obvious. But others do see the connection. It's not just the creationists that are pointing to it. A book this size has not room to explore the details in depth, so it references other material, as you have already noted.
1. Keith, A., 1947. Evolution and Ethics, Putman, New York, p. 230.