Why don't we just say, once and for all, that SD and CSC teach a kuntao style from Indonesia, which has its roots in the styles taught by Chinese immigrants to Bandung in Western Java.
It looks different and has different methods from mainland and Taiwan Chinese styles because it was geographically seperated, and influenced by elements of the local styles and culture, as well as blending elements of several Chinese styles which were taught together instead of as seperate disciplines.
Compound this with inadequate or hasty instruction for a large number of students, some of whom go on to become instructors themselves, and you end up with something that just looks like a mess. But there are elements of the system which are worthwhile, even if it isn't a "pure" Chinese martial art.
If one were to take a step back, ensure solid training of fundamentals, and re-focus the curriculum on a core set of forms (not trying to teach over a hundred of them in the course of a few short years), that system would produce more solid martial artists who could be proud of their style and their skills.
If we tell the truth, as best we know it, about the origins of the style and the forms, it will lead to fewer questions down the road. Myths and legends are still fun stories to tell, but don't let students confuse them for factual occurrences.
I say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a core of a good style here, if the focus could just be shifted.
"I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udun! Go back to the shadow, you cannot pass!"