As a former, publishing YEC, I will give my views on why the ASA doesn't
have more impact. The main driving doctrine of a YEC and many of the laity
in the pews is that Genesis must be historical if Christianity is to be
true. Anyone who does not accept that doctrinal viewpoint is
automatically suspect among most of the YECs and thus they are not listened
too. Why? Because the YEC leaders and pastors have sufficiently
indoctrinated their followers to see the world as an us against them type
of spiritual warfare. And people who do not believe in Genesis are
automatically 'them'. So when Howard van Till, or George proclaim that
early Genesis is not to be taken as history, the YEC followers simply cease
listening to them.
I do not say that from an academic or theoretical point of view. I say
that from my own personal behavior as a YEC and from a personal knowledge
and friendship with many of the big-named YECS with whom I shared many
meals and many discussions both in person and via the mails. As a
publishing YEC I gained an immense amount of access to the bigger named
folks. Like it or not, the YECs see the logical fallacy of believing that
which appears written as a historical account but is not historical (and
they won't accept as true that the point of early Genesis is some fuzzy
theological leason only with no historical content. And I agree with them).
So, we find a gulf in Christendom which is difficult to span. On the one
hand the YECS cling to a false science in order to save the Bible and
people like George, Howard, etc who understand science very well and know
that the YEC view of Genesis can't work, never offer the YEC anything real
to hang on to. Like the commander in Vietnam who said we needed to destroy
the village to save it, YECs view statements that Genesis is only a
theological lesson against polytheism with no historical basis, as a
similar thing. They view it as saying "in order to make the Bible true, we
must make it false." And they simply won't go there.
(I am NOT trying to start the debate again. This post is merely my
observation from my YEC past which neither George nor Howard ever went
through to the best of my knowledge).
That is one reason I am offering a scenario which matches all the data I
can make it match with the hope that this will scratch the itch of the YEC
to have a historical Bible, give the YECs what they need--modern science--
and at the same time scratch the itch of the more scientifically
knowledgeable to have real science rather than the childish play-science
the YECs offer.
But of course, my view is 'outlandish' as everyone knows that humanity
isn't as old as I say it is. However, it does fit the facts of science and
offers the YECs something they desparately require. I would quote Colin
Tudge when discussing the 19th century advocates of an outlandish theory
that also matched the data--the glacial theory. He says,
"Three kinds of observation led Charpentier, Schimper, and then Agassiz to
this idea. First, they wre Swiss; in their native Alps they could see
glaciers at work, and could see at first hand what they can do. Secondly,
they perceived that there is a range of geological phenomena so
extraordinary that extraordinary explanations are demanded--and so they
provided one. It was perverse of others to object to their ideas on the
grounds that they were outlandish, since outlandishness was obviously
required. Thirdly the explanations put forward by the other geologists of
the day did not seem convincing." Colin Tudge, The Day Before Yesterday,
(London: Pimlico, 1995), p. 27
In order to solve this creation/evolution/flood issue, we know that if it
is to be solved, several things must happen. Someone must know or learn a
whole lot about a whole lot of different fields of study--geology, physics,
astronomy, anthropology and biology. Superficiallity will not solve it;
specialization in one area to the exclusion of the others will not solve
it. Many christian authors tend to read one or two books in given field and
then write their own tome as if they have suddenly become an expert (During
the past 4-years of reading nearly everything I can get my hands on in
anthropology has clearly brought to light how simplistic and ignorant are
the anthropological pronouncements of both YEC and OEC writers who read
maybe one or two books and no technical articles--Of Panda's and People and
The Genesis Connection come immediately to mind in this regard). And
finally, given that other explanations haven't worked, maybe an outlandish
one will work--eventually!
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution