Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

Is it just me, or has there really been an increase in threads discussing YEC viewpoints recently? It almost seems like the ID defeat in Dover has spurred into action YEC creationists, who presumably had been sitting on their hands waiting to see if ID could wedge its way into public education, hopeful that YEC viewpoints could follow close behind.As much as ID isn't science, I don't see this as its biggest problem. At least as promoted by the Discovery Institute, the biggest problem for ID is its willingness to forgo any connection to Biblical literalism. ID accepts most findings of modern science and rejects little. Indeed, its primary criticism of science is that it is insufficiently inclusive because it ignores evidence for design and is wedded to methodological naturalism. Were ID to find itself comfortably ensconced in educational programs, it's greatest foe would quickly become Biblical literalists.So my view is that the ID defeat has caused YECists to realize that ID is not the powerful ally they hoped, making its disregard of Biblical literalism, already obvious but carefully ignored, a rather obvious concern. YECs have now left the sidelines from which they watched the ID drama in Dover last year and in Washington with the BSOW escapade the year before and are back actively promoting YEC views.Or so it seems to me.--Percy

Hi 2ice_baked_taters,I'll just respond to the sliver of your post that was on-topic: Yes, we know. That's why the YEC arguments that are enjoying a mild rebound here at the moment have been such a puzzle to science-minded folk for decades. While it might be true that creationists accept creationism for reasons having nothing to do with science, they do not themselves believe this. YEC's bring their arguments here and to boards of education where it is argued that their views *are* science. Clearly they don't believe creationism does not have a scientific foundation. Which brings us to your next point: You'll often hear evolutionists clarify that they are presenting an argument not because they believe it will convince the other person, but because they believe it is important for the rest of the audience who, it is assumed, include some not so wedded to the creationist viewpoint. They feel this way because an informed public is science's best weapon in the battle against frippery, pseudo-science and true nonsense.We evolutionists are not really such a bad bunch. If creationists would stop interfering in science education the debate would cease.--Percy