All these explanations essentially provide more credence to faith than to scientific ideas, and they often go along with a deep misunderstanding (and sometimes mistrust) of the methods and results of science. You get clues to this in things like:
1.) Supposed experts paraded as "scientists" or "PhDs" without reference to the relevance or depth of their actual training.
2.) Appeals to "balance" or "continuing arguments" without understanding or revealing what the real sources and status of long-settled research are.
3.) Appeal to "facts" or "experiments" that are not repeatable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed, or documented.
4.) Ad Hominem attacks on scientist's honesty, methodology, or character.
By the way, creationists *do not* have a lock on these kinds of issues. Science in the making can be messy, and you will see many of these kinds of issues occur in debates that gore various sacred cows, such as in the climate change arguments, catastrophe study, and even in things like string theory, nature of the mind or of intelligence, or other esoterica where we have not yet been able to build equipment or perform controlled experiments to falsify particular theories.
The same problems crop up in various pseudo-science areas like ESP, UFO studies, re-incarnation, etc. Many of these share the characteristic with major religions that we want the universe to *make sense* in some controllable fashion, so we peg belief above verifiable fact.