So why do you speak of the YEC as having embraced the Bible, and the non-YEC as having embraced science? You keep using the language of dichotomy. You wrote "If BioLogos folks don't want to be considered as denying the Bible in their embrace of science, shouldn't they be willing to grant that a YEC geologist is not necessarily denying science in his embrace of the Bible?". That shows you believe there are people denying the Bible in their embrace of science. As Ben said, "The "embrace of science" and "embrace of the Bible" comments are very telling of your position".
No I didn't say that at all. I did not deny he is embracing the Bible. On the contrary, I said very clearly "his embrace of the Bible is not what is causing him to deny the science". That states explicitly that he embraces the Bible. What I also said that it is a particular interpretation of the Bible that is causing him to deny the science. I explained this in detail. You can embrace the Bible and still embrace science. If you embrace the Bible but deny science, it's because your interpretation of the Bible has a flaw.
Remember, I'm one of countless Christians through the ages who believes in the "two books" principle, based on the Bible, which was taken up by Jewish and Christian commentators, the idea that both nature and the Bible are books written by God, and that when interpreted they will always agree. Science is our method of interpreting nature. So there's no problem embracing both science and the Bible. You would do well to adopt this view.