Joined: May 2006
I agree that taking this up with Jason is best, but I think you are misinterpreting his words. He is clearly not endorsing YEC as a reflection of reality, but is instead saying that YECists at least have consistency in their perspective, while TEists are a mix of contradictions.
I have some sympathy with that position. Christian YEC says the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God, perfect and factual, and this perfection is maintained in, say, the King James version. Thus, the evidence we gather to understand the universe must all be interpreted in that light. YECists do this. They are wrong, of course, utterly, but they are consistent in their wrongness.
Christian TE, however, is in a bind. If we are not to trust the Bible on certain details, such as the age of the Earth, the Flood, as well as the timeline of the creation of the universe, why should it be trusted when it comes to Jesus, his miracles, his resurrection, his godhood, and other necessary beliefs if one is to claim the title of Christian? Jason is saying that TEists have conceded huge swaths of land to science, but insist that the supernatural still holds sway in some small patches of earth, and also that the Bible is actually really science-y if you squint a lot. He appears frustrated with TE's insistence on having it both ways.
Again, I sympathize with that view. Why can't Christian TEists simply say, "Indeed there is no reason to view the Bible as an historically accurate record, but I'm just going to go on believing in certain parts of it while I stop wasting precious time trying to force it to conform to science."