Bad science
How to get bad scientific advice
Bad scientific advice is a common feature of ID groups and creationist organizations. If science is the objective study of natural phenomena, how can one get bad advice? The Seventh Day Adventist Church and the Geosciences Research Institute are a classic example. The young Earth is essential Adventist doctrine. The GRI was established not for basic geological research, but rather to defend this doctrine. This means that GRI staff are chosen firstly for adherence to Adventist Doctrine and only secondarily for quality of their science. This compromises objectivity and circumvents criticism by the scientific community which are two critical features of science. This is also why scientific testimony in legal matters and from special interest groups should be mistrusted. Trial lawyers, like GRI, choose scientists for adherence to a viewpoint rather than for scientific reputation.

The Catholic Church, after a long history of conflict with science, finally established the Pontifical Academy of Science (1936). Academicians are chosen not for adherence to Catholic doctrine, but for scientific reputation. This assures that the church does not get self-serving advice. It's probably why the modern church has steered away from creationism. It's no guarantee that the church always gets (or follows) the best advice, but it preserves critical features of science.

Protestant churches lack central authority. More intellectually oriented churches value good science. Fundamentalist churches prefer stable doctrine. In fact their everyday thinking usually begins with doctrine and rationalizes. This is alien to science which begins with hypotheses and proceeds by hypothetico-deductive reasoning. With doctrine as a starting point it's easy enough to find agreeable scientists. A few honoraria and/or a little adulation create "science" tailored to doctrine. Agreeable scientists are then cast as highly qualified, magnifying their importance within the group and diminishing them in mainline science (cf. Michael Behe). Believers forget whether "highly qualified" came before or after acceptance of doctrine. As long as doctrine overrules scientific fundamentals, religious pseudoscience will thrive.