Faith and logic are essential ingredients of real science and an informed understanding the world
Wrong. Faith is not essential to science. In fact, it isn't necessary at all.
Faith, a Christian concept, accepts truth without requiring visible proof.
Wrong, and wrong. Faith is not a uniquely Christian concept.
I also suspect that you're using the term "visible proof" as a red herring. Science isn't based strictly on "visible proof", but on observable evidence. For example, we can't *see* atoms, but we can detect them and measure their properties.
Unless, of course, you want to reject atomic theory on the grounds that it's "liberal claptrap", like you did with relativity. (By the way, if you use a cell phone, you're using the theory of relativity. I'm just sayin'.)
...liberal logic may appear logical, but is actually nonsensical.
Wrong. There is no such thing as "liberal logic", nor is there any such thing as "conservative logic". There's just logic.
...science has become increasingly atheistic...rejecting God and his works in explanations of the world and all of human experience.
Wrong. Science is not atheistic. It is a secular enterprise. It is independent of religion. If your religious beliefs can't meet the burden of proof, the problem isn't with science.
You seem to think that if somebody rejects your religious dogma, they must be doing so because they have an opposing religious dogma. That's not necessarily the case, and you would do well to learn that distinction.
Instead readily embracing pseudo or junk science such as evolution, relativity, global warming and much of cosmology and geology based on a time frame which predates creation.
After your antics during the Lenski affair, you don't get to call anything junk science, Andy. Don't like our current best theories? No problem, here's what you do: come up with your own theory, test it, and then submit your results to experts in relevant fields of study. You need evidence, Andy.
Consequently the rigid logic of creation science
The notion of Creation is neither scientific or logical, and it certainly isn't rigid.
...atheistic secular junk science.
Science can't be both atheistic AND secular. Make up your mind, Andy. Better yet, learn the definitions of the words that you use, and use that information to change how you write.
