"I emphatically deny that Protestant fundamentalists go back to the fundamentals of CHRISTIANITY. That is the very reason I left fundamentalism and Protestantism."

American protestant fundamentalism is historically based in a series of volumes published by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles from 1910 to 1915. The intention of the whole project was not to introduce anything new, but to solidify the church's basis in the fundamentals of Christianity itself in the face of the challenges of theological "modernism". If you read thru the chapter titles of the series, almost everything amounts to an expansion of the points Kent has cited from the Nicene Creed. The one subject area that keeps appearing in the Fundamentals series that Kent didn't touch on is the fundamentalist affirmation of the inerrancy/infallibility of the Bible. I would submit that the doctrine of verbal inspiration, with it's implications of inerrancy and infallibity, is actually the backbone of historic American fundamentalism. All of the other doctrine is "proved" by "innerant" scripture.

There are avowed fundamentalists who are willing to say that the "innerancy" of the Bible does not preclude the presence of "innerant" spiritual lessons in the form of non-literal narratives; in my experience they have been the exception; fundamentalists I have known have generally insisted on the literal historical accuracy of the Bible. I have seen no indication that any "young earth creationism" is actually based on anything except the desire to defend that historical accuracy. The "scientific" conclusion is a given; the "evidence" to support it is sought and interpreted as necessary. I can't really see why a "young earth creationist" would attempt to distance himself from fundamentalism.