My experience with creationism is actually more textual than graphic.
I did not find any one creationist saying that the Earth is cube or something against observation. I found the literature important for simply drawing attention to popularization of a rather intricate process. I had studied/compared forms of creatures (reptiles and amphibians) and organized them in my mind but I could not simply become an evolutionist by going to school and trying to become one.
Why was that? It has nothing to due with cubic creationism but instead seems to me in hindsight to be simply that evos never tried to complete in a geological horizon the logical horizon of Kant. This can be explained in many ways.
As to the origin of life in our univerise, through the time the Earth and Chaos mixed and up to the discuussions of a prior "ice age" with man etc, creationists point to an "External" intellectual reflexion that must be determinatively related to material before it can make sense.
When CTD speaks of a complaint about continual revision of theories in science this is small comment. Scientists parochially assert what they are working on out of practical necessity just as any given minister will assert a particular theology. Many theologians can reach some kind of ecumenical sentiment and many scientists DO not keep claims and assertions dogmatic necessarily. Our personal horizons are not the same that of some idealized gestalt average of scientific opinion under (Kant's) architectonic.
If an external perspective that is not naturalistic leads one to think that facts otherwise are not as factual as being asserted then one needs to asses plausibility rather than rejection of the horizon altogether. So it seems you have related cubic creationism to rejction of a world-view. This need not occurr.
I do know that Will Provine "hides" behind the changing nature of today's theories but he does this because he has another synthesis (so he thinks) that asserts evolution has no purpose. What it means to pretend and what fear one has of retraction are prejudices hard to eliminate from the current debate.
Now it may matter exactly what shape the Earth has to subsequent formations from a big bang or equivalent (towards Newton's view (Earth as a point etc)) and particularly to patterns of form-making and translation in space leading and to the topological defintions of cladistics but we do not have enough information to asses this, it seems to me.
Consequently... one side sustains a tradition where it says all or nothing and the other fails to produce the content implicit. Too much about nearly nothing for my coarse taste.
™ Version 4.2