Young Earth Creationism is not the Problem

[Update: Louis responded to Ham's post this morning]
After all the discussion of evolution and creationism lately, I thought I would clarify something – I don’t think that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the problem, at least not in and of itself.
I may not personally find the science or theology behind YEC persuasive any longer, but if you do that’s fine, and really not something I feel like picking a fight over. There are many people who have wrestled with this question and come to a YEC position for perfectly understandable reasons, and I respect that.
What I’m frustrated with is how some YEC proponents have turned their position into something that is causing harm and division in the church, and needlessly driving away scores of people from the faith.
See I have spent most of my life among Christians for whom YEC was not only a majority opinion, but something of a badge of orthodoxy.
In classrooms, textbooks, and Sunday school lessons, the YEC position has been co-opted by Ham, AIG, Bob Jones, etc., and kids are taught from a young age that evolutionists are the bad-guys, that it is inherently anti-biblical, that evolution is really a way to justify sin and not have to believe in God, and that deep down even scientists know evolution has no real evidence behind it and the Bible clearly disproves it.
I’m speaking from experience here, because growing up that is the narrative I was sold by pastors, teachers, and peers.
Yet none of that is necessarily inherent to YEC, so why have we allowed such divisive voices to define the YEC conversation? Do we not see the damage that it is doing; to individuals, to theology, to education, to the way people understand the Christian faith, even to the place of YEC in the larger theological dialogue?
I’m tired of the narrative that evolution and Christian faith are inherently opposed and the entire conversation is off-limits, of hearing that yet another brilliant Old Testament professor was fired over their views on evolution, and of seeing the personal attacks on people I know and respect.
But most of all I’m tired of the way this false dichotomy creates an unnecessary crisis of faith for countless believers and a needless obstacle to the Gospel for those who are seeking God.
I’ve had my own crisis of faith, my own baggage that I’m still working through after being immersed in that narrative for far too long. And honestly, it didn’t have to be that way. [You can read some of that story here]. Yes I have residual frustrations, this debate can strike a nerve still. But looking back, YEC wasn’t the problem, it was the way YEC was held as an absolute on par with the Gospel, and the way it was taught as the only way to faithfully follow God.
Whatever position you take on creation, evolution, or the age of the earth, can’t we agree that faithful Christians come to many different conclusions on these issues, and have the actual debate over the science and the text, instead of turning it into a propaganda war?

Completely agree. I think if many YEC’s would learn a little history about the beginnings of N. American evangelicalism (via Mark Noll, for example), they would realize that YEC developed not so much from a result of Scripture interpretation or theological reflection, but rather more sociologically as a response to modernism.
I don’t think it is fair to call this a propaganda war. I think it is genuine fear, because those YEC’s genuinely believe that without this the person is lost.
That said, I think another problem we face when addressing this issue is that we combine two separate topics into one issue. Namely, we have combined the issues of creation and evolution into one issue. These two issues are better handled separately. I reject evolution on both scientific and biblical grounds. However, the most recent discussions of universal creation are things that I not only find scientifically appealing, but also biblically acceptable. I find it different to believe that creation took more than seven modern days, but the concept of being evolved from single cells does not only seem scientifically bogus to me, but also theologically threatening.
Why do these two topics often get combined?
Well said.
I’ve known Louis since 1982 and it’s safe to say that we’re the closest of friends. If any wavering on orthodoxy were remotely near, I would be the first to know and the first to call him to the docket. Granted, even I could be duped by Louis and my close relationship with him does not guarantee epistemic certainty. But the probability of my being duped is near zero given how well I know him.
The fact that Louis is seeking a broader and deeper understanding of how faith and science comport is a clear indication of his commitment to the truth of God’s Word and God’s world. Where direct contradiction exists between the clear, straight-foward reading of the inspired text and one’s understanding of the empirical world, Louis will always side with God. Always! Moreover, I doubt anyone in their right orthodox mind would charge that Plantinga was on his way to apostasy after a careful reading of his latest Where the Conflict Really Lies. Ham and others of his ilk are seemingly taken captive to and blinded by their own hermeneutical grid. If only they could stop outside themselves for a minute and be willing to discuss their position with the intellectual humility required by the very text they claim to embrace, then perhaps the discussion could move forward, just as Louis is seeking. And, at the end of the day, if the YECs are correct, then their position is strengthened by the engagement with alternative frameworks. Finally, if I know Louis, he’ll complete his quest by reading plenty of informed YEC authors to understand their side as well because he’s committed to the truth! Who could argue that?