This expresses the intent to insert ideology and religion everywhere, including where it simply is irrelevant or conflictual. And the intent to force everybody to do the same, or they should be bullied. There is also projection and inferiority complex, plus the inability to see the irony of attacking pure untainted knowledge as "anti-intellectual".
The classic "atheistic science" straw man is pushed to deny that scientists may or may not be religious but that it does not matter if they really follow the scientific method. And to argue that an ideal, "true science", should be the alternative, where someone might object to inquiry on the basis of a flawed modern interpretation of a flawed cherry picked verse written by an ancient person. For instance, knowledge about the natural world and our origins should be censored in favor of a myth.
There then is fallacious appeal to false authorities, like if science also worked that way, with cherry picked sentences from idols. More straw men of science are presented (outright lies), to pretend that there's no actual scientific work behind the curtains of fundamentalist ignorance.
Interestingly, another fallacy here is attacking people on the basis of alleged character, instead of actually looking at the evidence. This is another type of straw man to mislead by attempting to blind the audience. A version of Red Scare is thrown in for effect, even though that is completely irrelevant, except to attempt to frivolously smear.
More ironic hypocritical arguments are presented, like about a-priori doctrines, which is precisely the projection of creationist ideology: the conclusion is decided first and knowledge of the world must be embraced or rejected not on its factual basis, but on if it affirms the preconceived mythology. Of course, that's not how science works and if creationists actually did science, they would not use such arguments or would have been able to find a better scientific explanation than what they don't like, the best explanations we already have.
It ends with another hypocritical conclusion, based not on the scientific method and the actual merit of knowledge, but on the previously promoted straw men misrepresenting science. So the straw man itself is attacked. The stupid quoted arguments are affirmed.
At the end the audience was never actually confronted to facts about science and knowledge: what the scientific method is and implies, how it discovered the overwhelming evidence behind its discoveries, how its conclusions directly derive from that evidence. How a scientific theory is not "just a theory" but a working model based on evidence, knowledge and working hypotheses, that can make predictions and continue to be helpful in the quest for knowledge.
Lastly, who knows what these arguments are really meant to achieve. In the cult I was raised in, they were thrown around to control and exploit, even if they also were parroted by useful idiots. For a majority of Christians, the fact that we have evolved is not a problem and it does not make them atheists.