I meant to say that if you believe a scientific claim to be legitimate, there should/are going to be implications of that on other parts of your worldview. When we misjudge what the implications of a belief are, we can believe it while simultaneously rejecting something it implies. (That's what reductio ad absurdum's are for.)

We also tend to overestimate how much parts of our worldview support each other, or as this quote says:

If you were taught that elves caused rain, every time it rained, you'd see the proof of elves.

‌

I was under the impression that GPS was such a technology.

GPS requires corrections for general relativity, it's somewhat of a stretch to say that implies the big bang.

I also don't see much room for reasonably believing in evolutionary medicine without accepting macro-evolution

Well, according to the wikipedia entry for evolutionary medicine the key concepts are:

• Trade-offs: changes that could make an organism less vulnerable to disease can lead to a decrease in fitness due to effects on other traits.
• Pathogens evolve rapidly and respond quickly to human intervention.
• Some symptoms are useful defenses.
• Because cultural and demographic changes are more rapid than biological evolution, humans are often mismatched to modern environments.
• Human phylogenetic history leaves a legacy of biological constraint.
• Cancer is the result of somatic evolution.
• Humans have not stopped evolving.
• All phenotypes are products of gene-environment interaction and are often shaped by developmental calibration.

These all involve at most micro-evolution and the observation that humans are well designed for an ancestral environment, neither of which YEC's reject to my knowledge.