I notice that Answers in Genesis always focuses on arguing things like percentages of DNA similarity while saying NOTHING about the most important aspect of the similarities between living things, including humans and other apes: nested hierarchies and the fact that genomic comparisons confirm those same phylogenetic trees at the molecular level. Isn't it interesting that AIG never discusses this topic with their readers? They recycle the same lame arguments for years---usually while complaining about how little scientists know and how everything is allegedly beyond figuring out and always subject to different interpretations based on different worldviews---while never allowing their readers to learn about the most compelling evidences the Theory of Evolution. Does the author of the article understand these topics? I think that on his way to a PhD in genetics, he probably learned about the nested relationships and the fact that "98% similar" and "85% similar" is far less important than the patterns of the relationships!
You can bet that the author will never mention anything about the ways in which genomic comparisons beautifully confirmed the phylogenetic trees which had been compiled by comparing anatomies of various organisms. He doubles down on the traditional anti-evolution argument which alleges that Common Descent looks just like Common Design so that it is simply a matter of bias and presuppositions. In fact, Common Descent and Common Design share very little in common!
I always find it interesting to look at the highlighted tag lines of AIG articles. This article has two of them:
"Developing a reliable, complete genome sequence is anything but simple. And interpreting it correctly is even harder."
So what? Of course it isn't simple. But is interpreting it really so hard? Some aspects are and many are not. Yet the reason that AIG must focus on the difficulty is to keep reinforcing the reader's doubts about science and scientific methodologies. And look at the next tag line:
"We need to identify the evolutionary presuppositions that drive many scientists to interpret the facts in a way that is contrary to Scripture."
Are they "evolutionary presuppositions" or are scientists following the evidence where it leads? Also, are those methodologies truly "contrary to Scripture" or simply contrary to the popular traditions which Ken Ham holds dear? I certainly don't consider them contrary to scripture, despite having come from a Young Earth Creationist background. I know that tradition itself is a very powerful and blinding set of presuppositions. If I am sure that the earth is only 6,000 years old according to my church's interpretations of the Bible, then I must cling to those presuppositions and ignore the scientific evidence. AIG wants people to think that scientific evidence can be interpreted according to the whims of the interpreter's biases. But that misrepresents how science operates over the long haul. (Yes, bias and human nature interferes at times, but evidence, especially piles and piles of it, has a momentum which bulldozes through mere bias and tradition.)
I find the AIG very typical, not only for what it says but what it doesn't say. It sidesteps the most important issues while trying to keep the reader skeptical of science and scientists. Its message is "Trust us. We at AIG are the ones who are looking out for you. We will tell you what science you can believe." They regularly emphasize the false dichotomy of "You can believe the Bible or you can believe those biased atheist scientists." They rarely explain how countless Christians within the science academy are entirely comfortable with evolutionary processes and billions of years. (When they do mention them, they basically call them "bad Christians" who are "compromising the Gospel". But doesn't misrepresenting the science also compromise the Gospel?)
AIG's propaganda tactics bother me a lot because they cause me to relive my own experiences from my Young Earth Creationist background. I also think back on the Christian friends who shared that YEC background who were very bitter once they realized that they had been misled. Many of them decided that everything they had learned in the church was equally dishonest and erroneous. Ken Ham writes books which claim that the Theory of Evolution has destroyed the faith of many. In my opinion, Christians misrepresenting science and the Bible has helped to destroy the faith of many.