The text you "address" finds hypocrisy in claiming that ID is compatible with evolution while demanding that schools teach "the evidence against evolution." (Evidence which is mostly bogus and also happens to be the only intellectual content of ID.) Have you considered this?
1. Islam is a religion of peace. (President Bush)
2. ID is not creationism. (Scientists trying to get ID included in schools)
Clearly political correctness, with the idea of gradual change by persuasion. Creationism will not get by the front door of any school. The only serious ID proponents I have been exposed to have asked that schools should expose children to both theories while clarifying both are theories.
Once again the text which you appear to address raises a hypocrisy, or at least a self-contradiction, issue. It does so not shrilly but in wickedly funny caricature.
The dating methods that are used to determine the age of an artifact have proven to be unreliable, but it seems that the unreliability given margins for error would necessitate more than 10,000 years.
While in our geological minuscule lifetimes the meteors like Shoemaker Levy 9's collision with Jupiter (A totality of life ending event on earth that would go beyond dinosaurs), the rate of the moons recession (tide shifts that would minimize livable land space in the recent past), the delicate balance of the earth’s life sustaining capacity (absurd in geological time probabilities) among other evidence that suggests a young earth.
Now you can see why there is a wickedly funny caricature trying to resolve these contradictions for scientists who take all of the evidence seriously.
Be ye not quick to judge the evidence by creating faulty models prior to considering the entirety. Quantum physics is turning reality on its head. We still have many fundamental understandings that escape us, which once realized, will drastically changed the course of science, as it has done in the past. Newton and Einstein were examples of how we are just scratching the surface of knowledge that leads to more questions than we had before(Two Biblically literate scientists by the way).
God designed this rock and the life on it. We are just suggesting not taking His incites out of the loop.
The text to which you respond is not about whether the earth is actually young. There is no reasonable way at this point to construe that the earth is young, as your pathetic attempts to do so reveal.
Just read slowly and let your mind interpret the sentence. As with most humor, the stinger has to be in the tail.
The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we've convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. [4]There's a footnote on the original. That was intended to document the veracity of the "parody," but it will do in a pinch for understanding what is being talked about.
The discussion is whether ID is real science at all or just a political Trojan Horse movement for the Young-Earth Creationists. Obviously (as you seem at times to concede) the YECs hope so, but they'll have to fight it out with the OECs, Behe, and maybe the panspermists.