The problem that I have with science-based apologetics is that by attempting to weaponise the subject, it can seriously undermine your ability to understand it properly.
I say this from painful experience. In my final year at university, the one option that I chose for that very reason was a course on the formation of stars and galaxies. I chose this particular course because I was looking for evidence that “secular scientists” were making things up when they spoke about the age or the size of the universe and I wanted ammunition with which to expose them. I would actually cycle to lectures and supervisions in the subject thinking to myself that I was on some sort of “ammunition gathering exercise” for the purpose.
For example, one of our lecturers on one occasion described cosmology as a subject where “27\pi^4 is of order one.” My immediate thought was to interpret it as if it were an admission that cosmologists don’t care about accurate and honest measurements but just hand-wave things in ways that you don’t see in any other area of science. I’d completely missed the point that he wasn’t talking about accuracy but about scale – the distances, volumes and periods of time on cosmic scales are so massively humungous that in some situations the difference between 27\pi^4 and 1 pales into insignificance.
That particular course was nothing short of a disaster. On that paper in my finals, I achieved not only the lowest score in my entire time at university but what was probably my lowest score in any exam paper ever. It pulled my final results right down, shipwrecked my ambitions to do a PhD, and left me with little more understanding of the subject than when I first started. And how much ammunition had I gathered? One single, solitary, badly misunderstood, and utterly useless quote mine.