I have no idea. For they do not seem to contradict from where I sit. Therefore, I see no problem there.
Indeed, I would point your attention to the scientific physical cosmology that is called "big bang/inflationary universe theory." The nifty thing here is that there has been a tremendous amount of "human observation" that has gone on, as technologically extended by satellites and great mathematics to capture, say the WMAP data....
You denote three species of folks who you (from the context) might regard as "opponents" of your own point of view: creationists, intelligent design investigators, and YECs. But you do so in a way that suggests there is not a dime's-worth of difference between them.
To which I would respond: The three positions are not equivalent. Creationists and people interested in intelligent design have no reason to think such positions are contrary to the large-scale description of universal Nature given by state-of-the-art physical science.
Though I think the YECs may have a problem here: They seem to have a habit of projecting and imposing "time" as human beings understand/experience it, onto a timeless, eternal God.
But logically, I don't think one can get very far with that presupposition: For God Creator is not subject to the Laws of His Creation.
There is more I'd like to say tonight in response to your last. But it'll have to wait until tomorrow. The hour is growing late, and I still have to get dinner on the table....
So, good night and pleasant dreams, dear Bro! 'Til next we meet!
The three positions are not equivalent. Creationists and people interested in intelligent design have no reason to think such positions are contrary to the large-scale description of universal Nature given by state-of-the-art physical science.
Though I think the YECs may have a problem here: They seem to have a habit of projecting and imposing "time" as human beings understand/experience it, onto a timeless, eternal God.
I believe you've just imposed your own religious beliefs as a litmus test of the validity of scientific theories.
FRiend, some posters on this thread, and many others, are hugely exercised over the idea that “godless” science doesn’t agree with their own understandings of the Bible.
Those include the thread’s originator, and their anti-science language is not tempered by any respect for their fellow FReepers.
Imho, these people need to be called out and made accountable for their lies and false accusations.
As for Creationism and Intelligent Design, it’s impossible to believe in God without agreeing that He did Plan, Design & Ceate the Universe and does manage its unfolding.
But those are not scientific observations or theories, and so science itself must replace the word “God” with such terms as “random chance (lucky for us)”.
So seems to me, about 90% of the air would deflate from the controversy, if that were clearly understood.
On the topic of “young earth”, I’d suggest that here is an applicagion for Origen’s second rule above.