[Dionysios]

Stopped by the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY just outside Cincinnati a couple of days ago. It was what I expected which was not bad. It's a scientific oriented relic of Protestant faith which was more widespread 100 years ago. The Institute For Creation Research and Bible Science Association (now renamed Creation Moments) have been around since the 1950's and 1960's, but they do not have museums of this size.

Ken Ham's organization is more well funded and more mainstream although not as robust nor as tight knit as Gerhardus Bouw's geocentric Association For Biblical Astronomy which is also creationist. Funny how the heliocentric creationists shun and scorn geocentrism somewhat similar to how many evolutionists shun them - albeit not quite so badly. What's funny and absurd is how they try to claim the Bible supports heliocentrism which arguments say more about them than anything else. I knew this stubborn aspect about them going in and avoided astronomical subjects because I went because of those subjects with which I agree with them - not their conformity with NASA and modern astronomy.

To be fair, I am not certain that the Bible Science Association routinely stigmatizes people with beliefs even more traditional than their own like Henry Morris and Ken Ham's followers have done. And the good practical effect of that is you can have civilized, interesting conversations about certain important or controversial topics with people whom with you may in whole or part disagree.

[Rushy]

The Bible, like many astrological concepts, supports literally anything you really want it to. It is vague enough that a given rule or item of interest could be interpreted in such a wide array of ideas that it can in fact not support anything at all.

That is why FES attempts to be secular, at least regarding the theory itself. Though some of our members will quote bible, quran, or other religious texts, it isn't the official stance of the society.

[Dionysios]

In their library, I cam across books by Michael Oard who like some modern minded creationists had some peculiar ideas. In particular, he hypothesized that natural stone columns like those in Meteora, Greece or Utah's Valley of the Monuments were allegedly not created that way in the beginning, but were hypothetically formed during the flood by the general mass upward surge in plate tectonics allegedly going on at the time.

To me, this particular theory was familiar with nothing so much as some modern flat earthers' "universal accelerator" theory of the earth moving upwards. was passing hypothesis off as fact akin to what atheist theorists do as well. The only difference was they are a group with an understanding that their models will conform to the Bible - unless you go against Newton. They'll criticize Darwin, but Newton is a sacred cow to them.

[Dionysios]

Though some of our members will quote bible, quran, or other religious texts, it isn't the official stance of the society.

I think this then is okay because the purpose here is the truth and information about the physical world rather than theology specifically.
Although Charles Johnson's Flat Earth Society of which I was a member did have an officially theological stance as his newsletter makes obvious, I think the attitude of his society and what you have stated is the same policy because the members of Johnson's flat earth society included Jains from India, western atheists, et cetera.