" Young Earth Theory "does not compute" -- not even for creationists (those who understand science, that is...)"
How do you deal with the fact that science is founded on induction and the fallacy of asserting the consequent? How do you deal with the weaknesses of empiricism? How do you deal with the fact that universal laws can never be justified by the appeal to particulars?
Science is worshipped today as THE oracle of truth and knowledge, but that's only because people are poorly taught in the philosophy of science and are therefore ignorant of the limits of science. Real scientists, knowing their limits, are humble. Science is fine for showing us how to manipulate the physical world and how to behave in the lab. But outside of that it can't give us truth. By its very nature it can't give us truth. It can only give us inductive conclusions which can never be called truth or knowledge and must forever remain theory, here today and replaced tomorrow.
Scientists who understand the game will never talk about truth and knowledge, they will only talk about theory and hypothesis.
I know what your reply will be. You will want to list out all the successes of science because you believe that pragmatism defines truth. However, pragmatism will not solve the fundamental limts of science.
So, what defines truth? Or is the scientific model the best we are going to get?