This is a very reasonable argument and if God intended us as special creations which he patiently worked towards over billions of years would be truly amazing. The problem is that this is not what the Bible actually says or means by special creation. Its a reading of the scientific view onto the text and then an attempt to rationalise the meaning of the text to fit that scientific theory.
I would argue that what the bible mentions as special creation does not involve process. I believe that this is a much more faithful reading of the scripture, based on what the original human author intended, than a reading from 20th century "rational" sensibilities.
Which leads to a misconception about TE's - that we are "reading scripture with a filter of modern science". This is untrue - since we reject that God was trying to place a modern, scientific worldview into scripture, we read scripture with NO deference to science. We read it a spiritual revelation of God to a human author, who penned that revelation in terms of his own history, culture, experiences and worldview. YEC's and OEC's, however, have adopted the concordist view - that scripture is written to express a scientific truth that was then-yet-uncovered. For instance, a YEC will read the verse
This is what God the LORD says--he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it:
and believe this is God giving knowledge of an expanding universe. A TE would read this and believe the author was referring to the skies as they would appear to the original human author, i.e. stretched out to every horizon in every direction.
Ones whole hermeneutical approach to scripture changes with this interpretation.
Some certainly does, but much YEC theology is based on misinterpretations of scripture - a systematic theology where a base assumption is made and interpretation is guided by that assumption. I think a different hermeneutical approach is entirely called for, and in the end it does not alter the gospel of grace one bit.
Most TEs will accept the historical nature of the resurrection of Jesus or of his creation miracles. But they analyse the first chapters of Genesis into a work of literary theological fiction to avoid the tensions they are afraid will break their faith with the scientific consensus among their intellectual peers in the secular universities. You believe in the same God I do without accepting the full implications of what that means about the levels of deception in the modern academic world
I'm a TE who is not a scientist and does not need to answer to any secular scientific authority. Most of my closest friends are either creationists or those who don't know either way (and don't really care). Life would be easier for me if I'd accept OEC or YEC, but I would not be honest with myself if I did. There is enough evidence to prove to me that YEC is not possible, and OEC makes little sense. Either God created the universe over billions of years, or He created it to appear that way; and either way, YEC science is bunk and the secular scientists are closer to the truth.
I don't fool myself about the deceptive nature scientists OR theologians. I've seen enough dishonest, deceptive and misleading tactics used by YEC proponents that I do not trust them. I do not trust any individual scientist, but I do feel that the scientific method pretty much ensures that bad science will die. If evolutionary theory was a bunch of bunk and scientists knew it, then it would die a certain death (and would still not "prove" to atheists that there was a God). In the end, too many questions posed by things we know cannot be answered adequately by ID scientists for me to feel any other way.
