There are geologists, paleontologists and life scientists who contributed to In Six Days. Most of them are involved in fields that do not accept the young earth model.
He asked for creationists that have applied YEC to get results.
Again, the majority of the essays were not written by creation scientists.
But they support 6-day creation?
As to whether the scientific community accepts their conclusions concerning Genesis, however, is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. If YEC could put forth applied results then it would be VERY relevant. But so far, it has not.
What matters is not an argumentum ad populum, but whether these scientists who hold a creationist position succeed in reasonably stating their case.
But if you cannot apply it to the real world, you are not really supporting your case.
You will not know this, though, until you read the book with an open mind.
In other words, if you read it and think YEC is somehow valid. An open-mind would see this for what it is and that is philosophy and religion, not science.
I was entirely skeptical of the young earth position until I realized that it was unanimously accepted by the early Church. To think that I could understand Scripture better than the church fathers is a little presumptuous.
To think that they understand science and the way the world works better than we do now is pretty presumptuous as well. They had no idea of things that we take for granted now (like Gravity, Heliocentric theory, the size of the Universe, the age of the Earth, etc.).
If one honestly considered what the rest of the Bible actually says concerning Genesis, it would be impossible to conclude that it wasn’t written as literal history.
So what? It was written by people who didn't fully understand how the world worked. They didn't know the true size and nature of the world and the universe.
This is what the Church understood, and therefore, this is what I will believe.
Ah, 'believe'. In other words, your statements are a matter of faith and not of fact.
I find it refreshing that there are thousands of scientists outside the creation science community who feel the same way and are able to logically defend what they believe.
Thousands? That is a bit of a stretch. Project Steve is already near 800. And, that is just Scientists who are named Steve who do not accept Creationism.
That something is a minority view does not automatically mean that it's wrong.
But if it isn't based on fact and is presumptuous and vacuous then it does mean it is wrong.
Every scientist holds a framework through which data is interpreted, and this is no different.
Science isn't democratic. Conclusions are based on facts, and the evidence is convergent, not divergent. The very idea that one could look at all the evidence and reach two separate (and only two?) conclusions is pretty silly.
Given that no humans were there to observe the actual events, having a particular framework is not only justified but necessary.
According to that logic, forensics would go out of the window. If no one is there to witness a murder, then I guess we should just scrap the case?