Agreed. And you will find on this forum many instances where people have taken claims made by AiG in articles or its museum or creationist films and dissected them and pointed out the errors. For example: Misrepresentation of Grand Canyon rock formations - #2 by jammycakes
No one is claiming that everything they say should be taken at face value with a smile and nod. It’s just that we don’t know why every individual does what he or she does. People are very different and very complicated and when you have the kind of indoctrination that goes on in these circles (some of which involves spiritual abuse and resulting trauma) you just never know what motivates people. We can empathize with people we strongly disagree with. You can have full and informative conversations about the lies of AiG without getting into the “why” part.
It is destructive. But can you name a single example of a time your approach actually worked and an influential YEC was shamed and bullied into good science and theology? Look at where the country is right now! Forget YEC, look at the complete unwillingness to accept basic facts about vaccines, viruses, masks, and climate change. If you think yelling at people and demanding an evidence-based argument gets anyone to change their mind about conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, you must never venture on to social media or have a single friend, family, or acquaintance in those demographics.
True, and the audience is people in the pews, the consumers not the producers. I’m all for vociferously publicly denouncing dishonesty of elected officials and others who have influential public platforms and are spreading lies. That is a democratic obligation. But those people don’t hang out here.
Actually research does not bear this out. Acceptance for evolution and climate science in the US has increased over the last decade, including in the church. And some of it depends on semantics: Exploring Different Ways of Asking About Evolution | Pew Research Center