I think you missed the strong inference that all the references to “kinds” in the text were made on purpose, and with divine foresight, specifically aimed at our current day and the threat of an evolutionary paradigm:
“Let the land produce vegetation according to their various kinds.”
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds
trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.
So God created the great creatures of the sea according to their kinds
and every winged bird according to its kind.
“Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”
God made the wild animals according to their kinds,
the livestock according to their kinds,
and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
Even Man is a separate kind
“Let us make mankind”
So God created mankind
So it looks like your claim of “ZERO specifics provided” by the text is wrong.
So I read both and it seems that your article is talking past what Ham is saying in a way. Also the history ignores the extreme flux in the American church with so many European immigrants taking their view with them late in the 19tb century, as well as the African American churches that arose in the 19th and 20th century.
To me the relevant questions are whether the science of creationism had a major influence on churches or Christians holding or changing to a belief that creation is recent and that common descent is unbiblical.
I really don’t see that it did as I’m still not that familiar with any of the science of creationism. It’s not as if those views were used to justify a certain interpretation of Genesis in my experience. For me, the only thing used to justify it was scripture and I’m sure that’s true for the denomination I grew up in for all the time it has been in existence. Of course, I can only speak for my experience but if Christians based their beliefs on creation science I’m sure they’ve probably given them up by now. If you’ve based your beliefs on an idol, the idol will fail.
To me the apologetics ministries are useful only to show other scientific possibilities. But unless those possibilities can be tested and are falsifiable, they are not necessarily correct.
When I search for something related to Genesis, I actually find that the best resources for discussing aspects of Genesis without directly involving any science come from AIG.
I concur that that which God reveals in a Biblical text is there for a purpose.
(1) I see nothing in the Genesis text which is “specifically aimed” at any particular era of future readers. These are timeless truths.
(2) Not only is there nothing about “an evolutionary paradigm”, the Genesis text and evolutionary biology entirely agree on this basic fact: creatures reproduce after their own kind. That is, reproduction always produces offspring which are very much like the parents! (Indeed, if ever offspring were unlike their parents—that is, not of their own variety/kind—that would be powerful evidence against the Theory of Evolution.)
In any case, I stand by my claim that the Genesis text provides no specifics, just general truths of the kind you we just discussed and can mutually agree upon: God made living creatures along with the rest of the universe and reproduction produces offspring which are like the parents.