hooberus:The Biblical creationist view does not precludes that "the world is real and largely as it appears to be, and that measuring, investigation and the use of logic can lead us to useful conclusions about the universe."
No, it doesn't preclude it, but such a view is secondary to their primary supposition that the Bible is true. Where there is a clear contradiction between the literalist interpretation of the Bible and the observable evidence (as in Abaddon's examples above), they choose the former.
Many creationists deny that they presuppose such a thing. At least AIG are honest and admit it, although to justify this view they need to claim that those who believe in evolution also have presuppositions, and that these are of the same kind as their own, a claim that is clearly untrue.
Many evolutionists do have presuppositions. For example one of them is that of only considering "naturalistic"(materialistic) * explanations for all phenomena including origins (before looking at and regardless of the data). Thus we find statements such as:
"[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added)
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Scott C. Todd
Department of Biology, Kansas State University, 18 Ackert Hall, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA Nature 401, 423 (30 September 1999); doi:10.1038/46661 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6752/full/401423b0_fs.html
Furthermore many evolutionists (including the NAS and teachers groups) even go so far as to require that "science" itself be defined as being limited to only "naturalistic" explanations:
"The NAS defines science as a search for purely natural explanations for all phenomena. Under this definition, science is bound to oppose any theory of intelligent design, no matter how compelling the evidence. That is fine, but the NAS should admit that this definition is a philosophic choice, and a statement of faith that natural explanations indeed exist for all things, and indeed are true." (A Critical Analysis of Science and Creationism A view from the National Academy of Sciences In relation to Intelligent Design Theory By Casey Luskin)
“If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”
(Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press)
Indeed much of the Kansas School Board controversy simply involves the definition of "science" itself -in which evolutionists are demanding that the definition of "science" itself be as being limited to only "natural" explanations: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world." (The other side is simply seeeking a definition that is philosophically neutral -that is that is: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.") http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Kan.htm
* As Denyse O'Leary stated: "In practice today, "natural explanations" is a code phrase for "explanations that rule out design or purpose." " (ID Report 07-16-05) (Lewontin and Eldrege quotes above provided by http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1169)