Which scares a creationist more, evolution or theism?

I have been looking over the material an angry parent sent me from AIG, and I have realized something that I haven't always emphasized or seen before. I realized that AIG and YECs in general are much more interested in attacking theistic evolution than attacking evolution. I always knew they didn't like theistic evolution, but I failed to see how that is more important than evolution itself.

One of the pamphlets I have is titled "6 days or millions of years?". Being a scientist, I assumed it would contain the various creationists attacks on the evidence for an old earth. At no place in the 48 page booklet does it address any evidence for an old earth at all. In fact, the only place where evidence is even brought up is the following sentence on page 16: "The age of the earths, as determined by man's fallible methods, is based on unproven assumptions so it is not proven that the earth is billions of years old." That is the only place science is even mentioned in an indirect way.

So what is the rest of the pamphlet? It is a diatribite against a non literal reading of the Bible. It discusses whether the days are literal days or metaphorical days, whethere there are two creation stories or one, whether an old earth and the fall of man can be reconciled, etc. The enemy is clearly not the evidence for an old earth, it is those Christians that read the Bible differently than them.

I think they know that is the real danger to their viewpoint. Most creationists aren't going to be easily swayed to evolution if they must reject God first. But many will happily embrace evolution if they dont' think their immortal souls are on the line. One of the main purposes of an organization like AIG is to convince Christians that any interpretation that includes evolution will damn them to hell. Theycan ignore actual evidence, because if the can convince people that the Bible can't be read any other way, most of their followers will not even look at the evidence.

The other pamphlets are similarly lacking in science, heavy on damning liberal Christians. Pastor Eckstein's recent article in the Jamestown Sun, which I discussed this past summer, was two thirds Biblical exegesis and why other interpretations of the Bible are wrong. I found that part insulting, because he was basically using a newspaper editorial to argue a theological point and condemn many religions. That clearly is the most important point for him and most creationists. The evidence is simply the result of "fallible man" and is mostly irrelevant.