I was somewhat surprised when I read your statement about YEC's going out
of existence in 25 years because of the influence of younger people. It
seems not unreasonable that something would happen in this area
paralleling the decline of geocentrism in the church, but it might take a
long time.
Actually it appears to me that the young people in the evangelical
community are more thoroughly indoctrinated with ICR teaching than the
old. The people on this list who testify to having had crises of faith
over Bible-science issues appear to be young enough to have been taught
the ICR views from their earliest years in the faith.
The background of older Christians is different. For many years prior to
the publication of Whitcomb's and Morris's book (1961) the Scofield
Reference Edition of 1909 was the Bible generally used by American
evangelicals. Its notes advocated the gap theory (original creation ruined
by Satan's fall and then restored) but also included a footnote saying
that `day' doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. Although the gap theory was
severely lacking in scientific evidence that could be cited in its
support, it did allow for an old earth and included nonhuman death before
the fall of man. Thus evangelicals of that era who studied Genesis 1 out
of Scofield, even if they themselves believed in a young earth, were aware
that many leading conservative Christians devoted to Biblical inerrancy
believed in an old earth, and young-earth creationism was not so widely
perceived as a test of orthodoxy although many held to a form of YEC (but
not with the ICR details).
I agree with another comment on this list to the effect that ICR has
superior marketing. George McCready Price promoted flood geology for half
a century with relatively little success except among his fellow Seventh
Day Adventists, but Henry Morris took Price's theory and has gotten it
widely accepted as gospel truth in evangelical churches. Not only has he
gained so many followers for YEC, but he has managed to get most YEC's to
change their views and accept his particular version of YEC. If his
success was primarily due to a general predisposition to literalism, as
some have claimed, why didn't many people question his jettisoning of the
more literal 6000-year age in favor of his 10,000-year age for the
universe? The ICR has added flood geology, a vapor canopy, no death before
the Fall, no rain before the Flood, etc. on top of the old YEC position.
Apparently people are quite willing to accept anything billed as
anti-evolutin if it comes from someone who sounds as if he knows what he
is talking about, especially when it comes in the form of movies, school
textbooks, etc. advertised as helping to combat evolution.
Old-earth believers who rejoice in new scientific discoveries because they
see them as supporting Scripture are far behind in providing material to
Christians. Perhaps Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe is farthest along in
doing this, but it is still small in comparison with ICR.
Gordon Brown
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0395