You wrote:
> 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).
Concerning my prediction of the demise of YEC influence in the American
church, I recall a pithy remark by Niels Bohr that might be relevant:
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."
Since I have already given a number of reasons, none of which seem to
resonate with other ASA folks, perhaps I should quit when I am behind.
But still a few more comments:
1. I find myself disappointed with the gloom-and-doom attitudes that seem
so prevalent on the ASA and Evolution forums vis-a-vis the influence of
the ICR. While I am much less knowledgeable than many on these forums, I
felt some need to challenge this. Perhaps I am a Pollyanna for doing so,
but I think not. We do serve a God who can not be indifferent to the
problems of the American church.
2. I note in your remarks above that you refer to the influence of
Scofield's book (1909) followed by the influence of Whitcomb's and Morris'
book (1961). What this illustrates is that influences -- beyond the Bible
-- have their "day". It seems to me these influences should be measured,
not in "days", but in generations or quarter centuries. Perhaps this is
too short a time unit, but it must be right within a factor of two or so.
And, of course, no "influence" disappears completely.
3. I infer from your remark that you see the influence of the ICR as still
rising. Perhaps. Here, a careful study by a sociologist might give us a
clearer picture. My thinking is that the ICR has peaked and is on the way
down. With the CIA missing the timing of, and rapid fall of, the Soviet
Union, I guess it is appropriate to revisit Bohr's remark (quoted above)
concerning "prediction".
4. Finally, a point which I failed to mention earlier. My generation (I'm
nearly 60.) has witnessed the discovery of DNA, the wide acceptance of
plate tectonics, the formulation (by George Gamow and others) and nearly
universal acceptance among scientists (and by the public at large) of the
big-bang model of creation, various forms of mass communication on a
world-wide scale unimaginable even a few years ago, and more. Will these
have major influences on the American church? Surely the answer is yes;
they already have. (Have you tried contacting a foreign missionary by
e-mail?) And it seems certain, to me at least, that these will eventually
tear down the present "citadel" of YEC theology (perhaps quicker than we
dare guess). (I see these influences as being greater on young people than
on us older folks -- thus my comment about the young.)
> 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.
Good point. I taught a Sunday School class several years ago which drew
fairly heavily on Ross's material. I think it was well received. We can
debate, if we want, whether Ross has it all correct, but ASA types would
be wise to be generally supportive of his significant effort to respond to
the YEC influence in the church. (He is reaching the pews better than
most of us in these forums.)
Thanks, Gordon, for you thoughtful remarks.
Gordon Simons