I know exactly what you mean, because I am the same way. It seems obvious to us that certain information is restricted because knowledge is power and that power threatens not just their faith, but their entire way of life. Consequently, restricting information is the only reliable method of perpetuating their agenda without risk of losing their future generations to what they honestly perceive to be the greatest evil that exists.
By contrast, we're free to look up as much of their propaganda as we so choose because to an objective, well informed reader, their "information" isn't threatening at all; it's hilarious! In fact, that's why it's so difficult to tell whether
this site is truly operated by fundamentalists, or if it's a satire published by atheists as a parody of far-right-wing Christians.
Of course, this is still overlooking the fact that most people don't have the initiative to fact check their opinions through a peer-reviewed, impartial publisher, especially at risk of learning that their entire way of life is based on a fallacy. Most people are not cognitively prepared to accept that their entire community has been lying to them for their entire lives and will aggressively oppose any notion of such a phenomenon, regardless of overwhelming evidence. However, it would be unlikely for any one of them to attempt such a thing anyway, because their culture reinforces their ignorance by celebrating it and they are constanting and consistently stroking each others' egos over it.
As I said before though, most of these people already believe that they are well informed and thus have no ambition to persue additional research. This is why when you challenge the point of one of those campus-crashing fundies, they promtly interupt you with something like "don't you talk to me about FACTS! I HAVE the FACTS!" (when arguing in text form, they will invariably capitalize the word "facts"). Interrupting you and claiming to have "real" facts is partly an attempt to undermine your point so that they will appear to be in control of the situation, giving bystanders the impression that they (the fundies, not the bystanders) are the sole authoritative force in the discussion, but it is also a desperation attempt to prevent, or at least to limit, exposure to any piece of information that may challenge their faith. This of course helps to reafirm their own faith to themselves and to their peers, but also implements a strong directional bias with regard to the information's proportional representation. This way, if "FACTS" alone aren't convincing enough, perhaps their sheer volume will compensate for any lack of sense.
As I mentioned above, I can't tell if
this site is serious or satire (though I'm pretty sure it's satire), but if you scroll down to Professor Giraffenstein & Pepper's box, the very first question refers to dinosaurs being on the ark and links to an article about an African trek with a cryptozoologist to find a North American Apatosaurus.