No where did I say anything about "hiding" the existence of unresolved problems in any theory! What I said was simply that they are always part and parcel of scientific theories and stressing them in such a debate has no bearence on what the real issue is. I don't see how that amounts to being dishonest in presenting science, or a sign of insecurity for that matter.

What I might be "insecure" about is the way subtle issues like these can be warped and misunderstood as they spread through society and the long term consequences of such accumulated misunderstandings. The creationists are not really important by themselves, for their's has been a lost cause for a long time.
The main issue (for me) is missing the forest because of the trees: using the incomplete nature of scientific theories as an excuse to shy away from the consequences of taking them seriously as descriptions of reality-as David has argued admirably in his book.
I think one of the historical reasons for this resistance has been the efforts of older, once prevalent religious dogmas to "tame" science and keep it out of certain "sensitive" regions (once they realised they couldn't stop it completely) and that this played (and still plays) a part in what has brought about the general popular cynicism and the worrisome weakening of realist philosophy today,common among an ever growing number of people who are no longer able to believe in those outdated religious dogmas either. The view of science as a "useful myth" good as a book keeping scheme is quite widespread today and although it might seem farfetched, I believe this in its own turn has been a contributing factor to the rise and popularity of all the distrust in the foundations of modern Western civilisation (that comes in different forms like multiculturism or post-modernism, moral relativism...and even Islamism). They are arguably more harmful than the older archaic dogmas of naive faith.

That for the time being science is going forward at this rate, seemingly unharmed by such things, is partly due to the impetus acquired through centuries of struggle by people who were "insecure" enough to wage "cultural wars" - head on - to defend science as a source of real knowledge and as an alternative to dogma.
Why should that struggle be abandoned now?