I still think it is relevant. Back in 1857 the notorious Philip Henry Gosse (a great descriptive naturalist in his own right) raised the classic issue of Adam’s umbilicus and special creation, concluding that although it would show a false history and serve no function, Adam would have had the scar. The general consensus, of course, is that if he were right, the whole edifice of historical science (including stella astronomy) would be futile, and God a deceiver. So that one example provides sufficient data to discuss the case.
Now my point is that, as far as I know, Gosse’s query was the first time anyone discussed it - whereas it sounds like one of those mediaeval “angels on the head of a pin” arguments. Adam and Eve were depicted with navels, and those bright scholastics never thought deception was a matter to discuss. And their reasons were not empirical, but a different view of history in which it was up and running as a mature entity in one week.
My own position, as I’ve made clear, is that neither Scripture nor empirical studies entail a young earth. However, let us suppose that, come Judgement Day, God reveals that I’ve been wrong and that the YECs had the right chronology. Would I be able to charge him with deception? No, because he would also reveal the gaps in my perception, faults in my logic, or his valid reasons for appearance of age, just as his truth will judge all my other errors.
Will that happen? I very much doubt it - but I’m very sure that a good number of my other sure-fire objections to his ways will prove hollow and leave me blushing, because the bottom line, as Paul said, is Let God be true , but every man a liar. Meaning not that whatever God arbitrarily says is true, but that a good deal of what we assume is not.