Reading through the various comments, many of them extremely erudite, leaves me wondering how many of the critics have actually read much of Ham's stuff or spent significant time on the AiG website. There is a pervasive tendentiousness to much of the critique that rings extremely hollow to me.
I can see validity to much of the criticism here - particularly Mr. Bottomly's and Rev. Winzer's, not the OP's accusation of Pelagianism, which I thought was rather out of nowhere. Yet I have benefited much from AiG. I was struggling with evolution as a teenager, and reading some of the articles on AiG's website helped convince me of the importance of letting Scripture say what it says and not using science to modify it. I was not convinced of this by AiG's "creation science," but by their points about the infallibility of Scripture. So I think it is fair for Rev. Winzer et al. to make valid criticisms, and yet I don't think it is being said that nobody has ever benefited from AiG.
In retrospect, I could wish I had been exposed to reformed theology and presuppositional apologetics first, instead of having to go back and re-lay some of the foundation of my creation views after coming to reformed convictions, yet this is the way it occurred in God's providence, and I'm thankful for the role AiG played. Acknowledging some good does not entail being silent about necessary criticisms. The "creation science" aspects of ministries like AiG that are being criticized here have, indeed, caused much unnecessary confusion (for evidence, see the Ham vs Nye debate), and I think it is fair game for folks to point these issues out.