We seem to be on the same wavelength, John. Here are a few of the arguments against traditional science given by the textbook:
1) scientists base part of their claim that the Earth is zillions of years old on studying geological layers of earth/soil. They assume that all the layers developed at the same pace as they do today, timing the ages of the various layers at this pace, whereas some may have developed far quicker (during creation, the Flood etc).
2) in a layer supposedly 200 million or so years old, a fossil of a MODERN WOMAN was found! Similarly, dinosaur footprints have been found overlapping with human ones. The book argues that dinosaurs died out after climactic changes that occurred after the flood. Noah could have put dino eggs on the Ark, thus saving space.
3) evolution of animals & humans seems to be disproven by it being hard to find "missing links". I myself once thought that a primitive bird fossil, Archeopteryx, was like a missing link between birds and reptiles, because although it had feathers and wings, it also had a long bony tail, claws on its wings and a beak/snout with a set of teeth. However, the book indicates that this fossil's similarity to modern birds is closer than some scientists will have it be, that for example modern birds rarely have claws and that at any rate, it was found in the same layer as more modern-looking bird remains, so it couldn't have been their ancestor. This seems logical when I think of a modern mammal, the playpus, which has a "beak" and lays eggs, yet is not said to have evolved from birds. Similarly, the book mentions that fossils said to be human ancestors are really apes (when some of them are examined, they may indeed, I'd say, seem closer to apes than to people, eg. the "Australopithecus" and at any rate, many of the supposed "hominid species" exist only as VERY fragmentary remains. Homo
Erectus and Neanderthal people seem to really just have been races of modern humans, and the author mentions that if you gave a Neanderthal a shave and a haircut, he would look quite different from normal drawings of "primitive man" - his illustration shows him as looking just like, say, a modern North African.
4) I could go on with better arguments than these based on astronomy, geology and biology, but being pressed for time, let me just mention Noah's Ark. The book says that since the Ark landed on Mount Ararat, it got frozen in the ice there. But this ice sometimes melts. During WWI, Russian aviators saw the Ark from their airplanes and St. Tsar Nicholas ordered and expedition there. They photographed the remains of the Ark, and even found Noah's sacrificial altar. Alas, the Bolsheviks soon came to power, and destroyed their findings. Note that, according to the Bible, the Ark was humongous, quite longer than a soccer field, and had ideal dimensions for a ship, which mere mortals would likely not have been able to calculate with the knowledge of the day. It could easily have held many animal species if the specimens were taken young, as well as provisions and living quarters.
I may post more later...