Pericles, WmTrevor,
I appreciate your comments on "The Creation Answers Book", and the fact that you've taken the trouble to read it. (That thinking persons would devote such time to reading it is a comment in itself.) 

To those comments making specific reference to the book, I would like to make a proper response. But excuse me for being very busy at work this week. (One often can be distracted by the need to put bread on the table.)

But quickly, to WmTrevor's last question, I think he goes far towards towards answering it himself within his post. For this Scripture isn't there to twist however we like. It says specific things using understandable language. It's clarity is part of its beauty. When we come to a red light or a STOP sign in the street, we don't wonder about what it means. It's clear because the language conventions are clear. So too with the Scripture. It's overall message is clear and consistent.

And also quickly, in regard to what you say about 'conflict', I don't see any great conflict between the Scripture and any direct observations of the real world and empirical data. The conflict that exists is between Scripture and the interpretations and philosophies of those who hold opposing world views. But such is to be expected and normal in the common exchange of ideas.

DSdM states "if we should ‘reinterpret’ Genesis to fit secular science, why not do the same with the other miracles, and the passages that offend secular morality?"

Secular morality (whatever that is c.f. non-secular morality) has nothing to do with matters other than a requirement upon ID/Creationists that they stick to Bacon's science (est. 1620) in prosecuting their case. This means accepting when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them and that other theories that do not require the concoction of a creator fit the evidence.

To simply claim that, apart from this clash of moralities, any scientific misunderstanding is a clash of opposing world views shows a complete misunderstanding of Bacon's science.

Luciferace,
I think I should point out that what you have me quoted as saying in your post here isn't from me. It is a quote from WmTrevor, who I think was quoting "The Answers" book.

It would help if quotes were appropriated to the right person, along with some context surrounding the quote.

Dan S de Merengue wrote: “It would help if quotes were appropriated to the right person, along with some context surrounding the quote.”

Oh, the irony!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context#Quote_mining_and_the_creation-evolution_controversy
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/Quoting-Out-Of-Context-Fallacy.htm

Oops. My apologies, Dan, so I did. An opportunity well seized upon by AJP does not excuse my carelessness so, again, sorry.

Do you support the statement on page 64 of "Answers"? I don't believe you addressed this satisfactorily in your last post, again walking the line between literal and non-literal interpretations of the bible.

No worries, Luciferace. The words weren't mine, but I was recommending the book. Here's the whole paragraph from near the end of chapter 3.

"Compromise on the first chapter of Genesis, as explained in this Chapter and Chapter 2, has caused enormous damage to the church. After all, if we can’t trust the first chapter of Genesis to mean what it so plainly says, why should we trust the rest of the Bible? And if the first Adam didn’t really bring physical death to a previously deathless world, then why did the Last Adam have to die physically? (See 1 Corinthians 15:21–22.) Or if we should ‘reinterpret’ Genesis to fit secular science, why not do the same with the other miracles, and the passages that offend secular morality?"

The Creation Answers Book takes the position that Genesis is description of historical characters and events. That is the traditional interpretation. That is how the other Bible writers understood it. The Bible's theology is integrated with its history. If the history is wrong, what then the theology? They will fall (or stand) together like dominoes.  The paragraph above is saying that the meaning of the text is plain, and cannot be 'reinterpreted' without doing damage to the text itself and undermine the integrity of the faith.  To this I agree.