"I agree - their presentations are technically very good. But not
only is their science _badly_ flawed, their theology is dreadful."
That line got me to thinking, George. (I know -- bad idea!).
Let me lay out a scenario that finds ICR a positive force for
Christianity.
Assume that as a result of ICR's efforts 20,000 people each year become
Christians.
Some of those folks would have been reached by other evangelical means.
Some would not have been. Let's say 20 percent would not have been.
So far "Christianity" is 4,000 people ahead. Bad science and bad theology
aside. I think most folks would agree that 4,000 people ahead is worth
having an ICR around.
Now ICR "reaches," say, 100,000 new people a year. Say that 80% are
Christians or part of the 20,000 converts above. So 80,000 people,
because of ICR's efforts, take on the ICR baggage.
The question then becomes -- do we see 4,000 or more of those 80,000
(5%) fall away from Christianity because their faith is shaken when they
go to college and take a course in evolution?
My own guess is that while a few do -- and Glenn has documented some "war
stories" of people who have done this, I think the percentage of the
80,000 who would fall away is much less than 5%. Even 1% seems too high.
Now all of the numbers above are just my "first guesses." Before (or in
addition to) arguing with the specific numbers, if the numbers were
correct, is the analysis complete? If it is, then are the numbers
reasonable?
Finally, assume for a moment that the analysis is complete and the
numbers correct. Assume also that a person's salvation is far more
important than either "getting the science right" or even "getting the
theology right." Under these two assumptions, would you agree that having
ICR around is a "good thing?" Not the "best thing," just better than
having them non-existent.
Just a musing...
Burgy