First I'll define the "we" in the above.
Separate all the people who care at all about the origins question into
three camps.
1. Those who are generally in tune with ICR.
2. "We."
3. Those who are generally in tune with the Darwinist explanations as
written about by Dawkins, Sagan, Gould, others.
I know there are seventy-eleven variations of "we," and many of those
variations are argued here and on EVOLUTION and on SCICHR and on
PBS-DEBATE and on other LISTSERVs -- argued mostly among us. Meanwhile
categories #1 and #3 take little notice but go on their merry way.
The following data comes from the December 1997 and January 1998 issues
of A&F. I know these people -- Dr. Gish is a friend of mine -- I have no
reason to think the data is being deliberately overstated.
December.
Dr. Gish spoke to 21 churches, 18 schools and 13 Universities in Brazil
(5 cities).
John Morris and Frank Sherwin spoke to over 3000 people in two small
cities on the California coast.
Dr. Gish gave lectures at the University of Houston and Rice (600 at one
of these).
ICR now broadcasts "Back to Genesis" on 841 radio outlets! #9 among all
programs.
ICR also broadcasts "Science, Scripture and Salvation" on 695 stations.
(#13)
They also broadcast "De Regreso a Genesis" on at least 44 stations.
They also provide an "ICR News line" of stories to secular stations.
They opened up last summer in South Africa.
January
Their book ministry is now profitable.
They now have 45 students in their graduate school.
Their web site received 95,000 hits in 1997. How many did the ASA site
record?
They put on 36 seminars with 38,000 in attendance.
They hosted 82 other (smaller) meetings.
20,000 visitors toured their El Cajon museum.
ACTS and FACTS readership now is 150,000.
Meanwhile, "we" squabble among ourselves as to who is right and who is
stupid. The TEs scoff at the PCs and the PCs demean the (few) YECs and
the non-theists watch and have a big belly laugh from time to time.
I guess I'm frustrated. I stand in awe and admiration for what my ICR
friends are doing -- I think their science is flawed -- but their
marketing seems to be superb. And my non-theist friends are equally
successful -- all they need to do is attack the YEC/ICR arguments and
walk away successful. With very little exception, the message of "we,"
that there are other positions than YEC and non-theist, is not reaching
many people.
We are losing. Big time.
Kudos to those trying to turn the tide. To George and Glenn and Loren and
Stephen and Brian and many many others I've met on these LISTSERVs.
Would that you could be cloned! < G >
But
We are still losing.
Burgy