Mazrocon - I think your Ken Ham quote reaches far beyond the YEC view to a much wider modern perception of God (which, in my view, ultimately arises from the assumption of a fallen creation). Ham is, despite his apparent reliance on Scripture, prioritising here his own perception of the world, and drawing subjective moral conclusions from it, over God’s self-revelation in both creation and Scripture.
That, of course, is what he habitually accuses “evolutionists” of doing by preferring science to Scripture: but in truth, theologically much evolutionary discourse has done just as he does and reached the same, unscriptural, conclusions.
Charles Darwin could not believe a loving God would make Ichneumonidae wasps, Richard Dawkins that such a God could not be responsible for the (supposed) agonising deaths of most animals, Francisco Ayala (writing for BioLogos!) that it is blasphemous to attribute the faulty human reproductive system with its spontaneous abortions to God, and Darrel Falk (running BioLogos) that God would not have created the ingenious intricacies of viruses.
Such thinking - questioning God’s goodness in creation and so denying his involvement - pervades much modern theology too, and dates back to Leibniz (and not really much before), but colours all sides in the origins discussion, as my book attempts to document. And it’s likely that this pessimistic view of creation goes back to the unfortunate tendency of the Reformers to extrapolate “thorns and thistles” beyond their role in Genesis.
So the YEC assumption about these verses actually reflects a far bigger issue, which is the widespread loss of the true biblical picture of God, and his creation, affecting not only much Christian thinking, but the perception our wider culture has of the creation.