George - first, another excellent post, and thanks for engaging with the question.
Quite honestly, that IS mostly what I hear. I certainly listen to YEC arguments, but they start from their view of the Bible, and fit the data into that narrative, and to me, too much of it is forced. But there’s really no point, as we have discussed, taking on their narrative unless they can see that their interpretation of Day in Gen 1 is not necessary. So I don’t spend much time listening to YEC folk talk science.
As far as Biologos being the only site, you must visit reasons.org also. Like biologos, not perfect, but lots of interesting and useful stuff.
I am in Boston and probably don’t get exposed often to the YEC stuff people in some parts of the country do. But where ID is used to argue YEC, I’d prefer to see them stop at the proper boundary of the ID arguments, which is merely that an Intentional Intelligence must exist.
I agree that we cannot reproduce supernatural events. You and I may be in agreement that such have happened, and that the data supports that view equally as well as the Evolution-only narrative. I am convinced Evolution needed help, and got it. But my point is that the approach is pretty similar, spinning a narrative and showing how the data fits. Sometimes, as with YEC, the data really doesn’t fit.