> Based primarily on my reading of ICR's ACTS & FACTS for the past two
> months, it seems pretty obvious to me that "we" are losing.
And he clarifies by what he means by "we":
> 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.
Then he relates a long list of activities by the ICR.
To this, Glenn commented:
> Sadly, I must agree. I agreed with a friend's assertion a few weeks
> ago that YEC would be dead in a generation. But since then several
> circumstances have convinced me that I was delirious at the moment I
> offered my agreement. I think the problem is that you cannot sell what
> people don't want. Most Christians don't want the earth to be old,
> don't want evolution, don't want science and don't want the modern
> problems they view science has visited upon us. Given this, it is no
> wonder we are losing.
While I have a great deal of respect for these two brothers in Christ, I
must disagree.
If one makes an uncritical evaluation of what passes for science from ICR,
one would quickly conclude that they are right and deserve to win.
Likewise, if one looks uncritically at ICR's self-promotional ACTS &
FACTS, one will also draw a false conclusion. Truth is that there is a
small group of Christians who think the YEC cause is absolutely vital to
their Christian faith, and they belong to a relatively small set of
well-connected churches. They feel duty bound to support organizations
such as the ICR. Add to this a collection of dedicate old men, and one
can, without a great deal of difficulty, produce the kind of activity
described by Burgy.
I am the "friend" of whom Glenn wrote. I still believe the YEC position
will mostly be history in another generation. The special set of
circumstances needed for maintaining it for another generation simply will
not occur. Old men die, and younger men who could take up the cause will
not be so easily found. Beyond this, our churches are quickly becoming
filled with younger church members who know better than to believe in a
young earth. They will not want to fund the ICR.
I would make a small wager with Glenn that the YEC (young-earth) position
will be (effectively) dead in another generation, but I will probably not
be around to collect. He suggested in our musings about this that he plans
to still be around then. I wish him good health -- and a sound mind with
which to recognize, and payoff, any of his ill-conceived wagers.
I belong to a fairly conservative evangelical Presbyterian church. Both of
our pastors are cold to the ICR and their brands of science and
Christianity. I don't believe this situation is unique. True, I don't
hear sermons endorsing evolution, but one of our pastors has just seen a
copy of the PBS debate, thanks to Glenn, who sent me a copy of his
recording. Also, I have passed along to our church forum items from
Glenn, Burgy and others. So far, no one has asked me to resign from the
Session.
Burgy adds:
> 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.
Too true! We can't seem to see our way through to a single well conceived
position on questions of creation and origins. My guess is we never will.
But I think we take ourselves much too seriously if we genuinely believe
that those whom Burgy calls "we" are the only, or major, obstacles to an
ICR 21-st century.
Gordie