Young-Earth Creationism in 2021: Defining Characteristics of The New Creationists

What is this New Creationism being preached by The New Creationists?  What are its distinguishing characteristics?  What I am identifying as The New Creationists (TNCs) are not necessarily an intentional or organized distinction. I think it has happened organically and those whom I am calling The New Creationists may have never even thought of themselves as being members of a distinct brand of creationism though I think some of them do. Nonetheless I am going to set out a list of characteristics that I believe (see disclaimer at the end) form a useful tool for distinguishing between traditional and new creationists.   

These are broad brush characteristics. No doubt there is great diversity of thought among those who I have labeled as The New Creationists. Likewise, some of these characteristics can be found in individuals of what I think of as the Ken Ham type creationism that dominates fundamentalist Christianity. It is the whole package of traits, though may not all appear in any single individual, that I think can help us to understand the shifts that are occurring within creationism.

General characteristics of The New Creationists

–  A desire for gracious dialogue with other creationists and a willingness to engage with non-young-earth Christians. They treat Christians with other views as misinformed rather than as compromisers and question the legitimacy of their Christian faith. 

– More likely to be involved in academia than to be employed by a large YEC ministry

– More comfortable applying an academic approach to questions which entails application of testing and criticizing ideas reducing their susceptibility to fideistic tendencies and creation dogmatism.  

– More comfortable not having every answer to every question and more likely to say “I don’t know” holding out hope that their work will stimulate future answers.

– Marked by a curiosity of creation and desire to understand the world, not simply content or unable to do anything other than to poke holes in conventional theories. From the New Creation blog: “creation research needs to be forward-thinking and model-building. While using data to demonstrate how aspects of the conventional model are incorrect can be a good thing, the research should be tied to work that lends to the development of our own comprehensive model”

– Less likely to fear new discoveries and at times discourage discovery. New discoveries always seem to raise new challenges for YECs. They are also challenges to TNCs but the latter find the challenges exciting rather than daunting. On the other hand Ken Ham comes to mind when he laments our wasting time and money to explore the universe ostensibly because we have more important things to do with that money here on Earth but there is always a sense in his words that it is waste because we already know what we need to know about the Universe from God’s Word and so there isn’t really anything out there to discover that is worth discovering.          

– Likely to have a higher tolerance for appeals to a mature creation or creation with the appearance of age.  An acceptance of the regularity of God’s providential upholding of creation allowing science to function and make predictions.  General acceptance of the validity of the science of radiometric dating methods even as they strive to find means to explain those observations within a young world and universe. 

–   An acknowledgement that there is “plenty of evidence from biology, the fossil record, genetics, biogeography, and other areas that support the process of evolution; it cannot be thrown out entirely.”  https://newcreation.blog/building-a-creation-model/ 

– Less apt to conflate being on the correct side of the culture wars with the necessity of a Young-Earth viewpoint.  Most TNCs hold similar positions on social issues as other YECs but they don’t conflate holding, for example, a particular position on gender identity with a requirement to believe in a Young Earth. They don’t make having the right view of critical race theory (the AiG statement of faith for its employees sets out expectations on this and many other issues) contingent on passing the test of your view of origins.  Ken Ham and most other apologists at the Big 3 YEC ministries have mastered the technique of equating the necessity of believing the Earth is young to having the right view on a litany of social issues. In their mind, failure to acknowledge a Young-Earth therefore places the Christian in grave danger of ceding the entire culture to the forces of evil. Therefore compromise on the age of the earth is unthinkable! Over the years I have received many conventional YEC newsletters and fund-raising campaign announcements that use this logic. Calvin and Hobbes described this strategy very well.

Let me expand what I mean by some of these traits and who may best illustrate them.  I will group them into larger categories beginning with the most defining characteristics and then those with lesser discriminatory power.

Gracious dialogue:  A common feature I have observed in my interactions and the written words of The New Creationists is a commitment to respectful dialogue with those with whom they disagree, always remembering and acknowledging the bond fellow Christians have in Christ.  It’s a different approach to dealing with perceived enemies.  I like what Rob Barrett of the Colossian Forum says in the forward of The Fool and the Heretic:

“What if the way we handle ourselves in our disagreements is a test of our Christian character? What if our failure to live out the gospel in the midst of these challenges is an opportunity to openly confess, repent, seek forgiveness, and try again?  What if Christian disagreement provides a beautiful opportunity to proclaim not how right we are and how wrong those other people are but how good and gracious God is and how committed we want to be to putting of the old, destructive ways and putting on new, life-giving ways (Eph. 4:22-24)?”

The book this quote comes from was written by Todd Wood along with evolutionary creationist Darrel Faulk. I reviewed that book here and here.  Wood presents a set of principles that I see in The New Creationists that is often, though not always, lacking in dialogue within young-age creationism and with other perspectives.  In a blog post in 2020, Wood makes these simple points that may seem antithetical to mainstream creationist leaders: “It’s OK to think that your intellectual opponent makes a good argument. It’s OK to say that someone you really, really disagree with has good reasons for thinking what they think. It’s even OK to be friends with people that see things very differently than you do…  If we keep looking at our “enemies” as completely irrational, thoroughly brainwashed, and totally evil, then the only solution will be to wipe them out.  We need to call out this lie, and we need to do it now.”

Dr. McClain, another of our new creationists, writing on why the New Creation blog exists for its premier post in 2020 wrote:  It’s not just the way creationists interact with evolutionists that needs to change. It’s the way that creationists act in general that needs to change. I have seen many creationist presentations for churches that talk about how dumb people are who reject creation or who don’t believe Genesis teaches God made everything in six days. I have heard people applaud the audience’s intelligence because they don’t fall for that “millions of years nonsense”

In describing what they believe, the New Creation blog includes this statement about presenting a positive case for creation:  

“We encourage the active development of testable hypotheses and model-building. Our aim is not to tear down evolution but rather build up the study of creation, and to do so in a respectful way. Dr. Leonard Brand, author of Faith, Reason, and Earth History, writes that “nothing is ever gained by making fun of others who have different beliefs on these issues. We each must carefully evaluate these philosophical questions and then deal politely and respectfully with those who disagree with us . . . Part of our task is to attempt to develop an internally consistent interventionist [that is, biblical creationist] theory, and then to evaluate the strength of the evidence for the theory.””

What these statements demonstrate is first, that this form of dialogue is not the norm in the broader creation community at present, and there are those in the YEC community that recognize that this is a problem and are trying, even if unsuccessful at times, to change the tenor of the discourse.  But this requires having some measure of respect for someone who you believe to be wrong. Ken Ham and others treat such dialogue as a sign of weakness, of compromise and of potentially allowing Satan in the back door, and maybe even the front door.  Some YEC believe The New Creationists are guilty of the same, on some issues.

Academic approach:  I have observed that most of The New Creationists are employed in academia, which results in some unique distinguishing characteristics.  First, the mindset of academics who are involved in both research and teaching can be quite different than that of a person employed to work for a YEC ministry. Secondly, those with faculty positions have a unique opportunity to train the next generation of YECs and so their viewpoints are more likely to take root in their students than with YEC apologetics ministries.  Finally, they are exposed to and  interact with a large number of students who sit in the church pews and influence their own churches for, potentially, many years.  

It is PhDs in academic positions that have the time, ability and resources to reflect upon and critique creationist theory and to break new ground.  Many of these have the freedom to explore and critique other creationist ideas in ways that employees at The Big Three YEC ministries cannot. Employees of a large YEC ministry may feel as though they have some freedom but they are typically hired to support the pre-established positions of that particular organization. These pre-established positions are typically reflections of the personal positions of the leader or leaders who control that organization.  

Academics from every field frequently play a role in shaping future ideas, even if they don’t have a large social media presence or name recognition. They tend to have a critical—in the sense of careful analysis—eye affording them more opportunities to expose any bad science or theology generated by populist organizations. This is why they are able to publish materials and espouse ideas that can break through previous dogmatism.

I say populists organizations because, although Ken Ham may think he is teaching truth to his audience, he is as much a reflection of his audience as he is an influencer (think echo chamber.)  He has a finger on the pulse of the conservative fundamentalist Christian and provides exactly what he wants to hear–he tickles the ears of his fundamentalists audience.  As such, products of his ministry are positioned and marketed toward the typical evangelical fundamentalists and their opinions on the world. This can be seen nearly daily on Ham’s FB and Twitter feed, where he shares his less-than-nuanced responses to so many social issues.  I’m rarely convinced he has anything but a superficial understanding of most issues that he comments on, but he is well aware of the position on those issues his audience expects him to take and support.  He isn’t so much educating as he is reflecting and confirming the views of a particular segment of fundamentalist Christianity.   

To YECs like Ken Ham, it isn’t just old-Earth compromisers at universities such as Wheaton and Calvin who pose a threat to young-earth creationism, it’s also YECs in academic positions that are the radicals that he fears.  For years, Ken Ham has been priming his audience to not trust theologians employed at seminaries and to be skeptical of Christian higher education, except at select institutions that have passed his strict checklist for approval.  Even within some of these institutions who have received Ham’s blessing,  the loyalty of some of those faculty have been questioned.

To see how the rhetoric of Ham and others plays out in the thoughts of their followers, just listen to a portion of this YouTube video https://youtu.be/SVqFwIOzqNg?t=2121 to which I referred in Part 1 of this series. Below is a transcript of a segment of this video in which the speaker is voicing concern about several of the New Creationists and the confusion they are sowing:

“…think about the stumbling block you’re creating for people trying to witness, think about it because the people on the street aren’t going to know what we mean when we say yeah, you can use it, evolution’s fine. And most of the people in the pew aren’t going to either. Speak clarity, not high academic gobbledygook! Speak clearly. Speak with clarity and honesty.  Yay yay and nay nay, not this wishy-washy in the middle gobbledygook because that helps no one.” https://youtu.be/SVqFwIOzqNg?t=2121

Do you notice what the speaker says that a ministry should appeal to?  They should speak to the understanding of the non-expert. If a person reads that “God did it,” then they aren’t going to understand how He could have used evolution to create.  So, then, any effort to invoke evolutionary mechanisms within a YEC framework is “destroying YEC.”  This speaker in this video is the fruit of Ken Ham’s rhetoric and, more broadly, that of the big three young-earth ministries. They try to articulate positions that leave no room for doubt, so that unshakable convictions in their followers results. (I would point out here the elephant in the room…  It is not the TRUTH that they are trying to establish, it is their own foregone conclusions that are being upheld.)

The New Creationist’s willingness to test YEC theories and to propose new hypotheses, even if they might borrow from secular science, is a threat to the traditional (and perceived to be correct) interpretation of earth’s history and life itself. 

A young-earth is not necessarily obvious:  Instead of proclaiming that a young earth is obvious and that secular scientists know this to be true but are actively trying to suppress the truth, TNCs freely admit that no one is crazy for believing the world is old and that evolutionary processes are play a role in maintaining and possibly even creating much of the diversity of life on earth. In stark contrast, YEC maintain their commitment to an apologetic that assumes that a  young earth and young biosphere is clearly discernible despite the considerable evidence to the contrary.  They justify doing so because, to YEC, the most important evidence, the Bible, is clear about the age of the earth and the creation of living things, each to their own kind and they expect that observations of the word will unambiguously reveal that truth.  

Sara Anne, one of the editors of the New Creation blog, reflects on “What is it like being a young, young-earth creationists?’ in a post of her own.  Sara is a graduate of Cedarville University and plans to pursue a graduate degree in geology. It is notable that her goal is to work toward advancing a creation science model, not at one of the big YEC organizations but from within academia. She has this to say about the state of creation science and the weight of evidence for the age of the Earth:  

“And I don’t say all of this to convince you that there is no scientific evidence for creationism—I think there is a lot! However, it is a young field with only a (relatively) small group of scientists who are actively model-building. As a result, the creation model isn’t as well-developed as the evolutionary model. This doesn’t make it wrong—it just means we have more work to do!”

Todd Wood also provides us with an example of this line of thought:  

“I have long (and infamously) maintained that there’s a reasonable case to be made for evolution.  It’s absolutely not fantasy or fallacy or illogical or completely without evidence or any of the other myriad cavils lobbed at it by its many enemies.  I also think there are substantial errors in the evolutionary perspective, places where things have gone wrong.  I believe this for scientific reasons, because of evidence that I have myself examined, and for religious reasons related to my understanding of the Bible and Christian theology, and for personal reasons based on my encounters with almighty God in my own life.  Just because I disagree with many of my evolutionary colleagues about evolution doesn’t make them morons or fools or whatever other insult you want to accuse them of.”

Dr. Coulson’s book Creation Unfolding: a new perspective on Ex Nihilo (2020) which proposes that God crafted a mature creation during six literal days of creation, provides an even more direct critique of traditional YECs.  Speaking about the problem he hopes to solve he writes:

“..I have become increasingly aware of some glaring problems within mainstream young-Earth creationism that stem from what I believe is an overly suspicious approach to conventional science. Exacerbating the problems are a plethora of on-line young-Earth creationist (YEC) websites that are hosted by well-meaning Christians who are neither scientists nor theologians.  These websites claim that scientific evidence abounds for the youth of the creation, and that a belief in millions of years is nothing more than propaganda cooked up by biased evolutionists out to wantonly deceive the world at large. In their minds, a YEC interpretation of nature is obvious, and only a fool would fall for the secular view that believes the Earth is 4.6 billion years old.” Pg 5-6

And later,

“It may surprise many Christians to learn, however, that much evidence exists in nature that supports the antiquity of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe.” Pg 6

Dr. Coulson will go on to develop a mature creation apologetic that he believes will allow the young-Earth creationist to acknowledge the evidence for an ancient earth and universe while still holding to a recent creation. This is not the place for a review of this interesting book, but I will say that several of The New Creationists recommend the book, even if they may not fully embrace all the tenets of its thesis.  My take on the book is that some of the solutions he provides are the only logical solutions to the “evidence problem” for YECs. As such, I think that we will see more and more creationists—most likely of TNC variety—embracing something like what Coulson is proposing.  This is especially true for anyone who comes to the realization that the evidence for an ancient earth is strong and that belief in an ancient earth isn’t simply propaganda whose purpose is to deny the existence of God, as the Ken Ham-type creationist might espouse.  

A similar acknowledgment of the challenge to creationism from radiometric dating and the problematic YEC apologetic response can be see on Coulson’s blog, Unfolding Creation, and reblogged on the New Creation blog in a recent post:  

“Absolute dating techniques associated with radioisotope decay are perhaps the greatest challenge to a cogent and scientifically sustainable young-earth creationist model. How are Christians to respond to claims that the earth is billions of years old?

Typically, most Christians and/or creationists will respond with some kind of anti-evolutionary rhetoric that categorically undermines the veracity of radioisotope dating—“it’s all bogus.” This is a mistake. Geochronology based on radioisotope models of decay is a scientifically robust discipline. A knee-jerk reaction that condemns the entire discipline is borne out of fear, not fact.” https://newcreation.blog/what-should-christians-think-of-radiometric-dating-pt-1/ 

Almost 20 years ago Kurt Wise wrote his treatise on YEC, Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe in which he began an early chapter on dating the earth with the following observations:

 “A face-value reading of the Bible indicates that the creation is thousands of years old. A face-value examination of the creation suggests it is millions or billions of years old.  The reconciliation of these two observations is one of the most significant challenges to creation research.  Much more research must be devoted to this question to produce an acceptable resolution.”  Pg 58

You should not read too much into this. Wise is not saying that creation really does tell us earth is old, only that the common observations naturally lead to an old-age inference.  He believes that a closer look with the correct understanding gained from scripture will eventually reveal the true nature of the Earth age. Still, this is different from the implicit and sometimes explicit statements in traditional YEC literature that the youth of the world is plain to see and, thus, should point man to the Bible.  

Other TNCs may not go as far as Wood, Wise, and Coulson with respect to the relative abundance of evidence for an ancient earth and pervasive common ancestry (Coulson), but they do share the view that scientists aren’t simply charlatans whose every motive is to subvert the clear testimony of the earth regarding its young-age. They give credit to what appears to be legitimate evidence of an old earth while maintaining that there must be a way to re-interpret that evidence in light of a young-age. They believe they are doing that work of reinterpretation but realistically acknowledge they have a long way to go  to produce a “cogent and scientifically sustainable young-earth creationist model.”

Admitting the evidence at face value (that it does not shout out that the earth is young), some YEC apologists may feel as if one their best apologetic tools has been taken away.  If it is reasonable to conclude, from the evidence, that the creation is quite old, then it does not follow that one can proclaim that the masses are being duped by the scientific community, which is one of the mainstays of YEC apologetics. The responses from some traditional YECs to these perceived “concessions” to the scientific establishment are not flattering. 

Dr. Jake Hebert at the Institute for Creation Research wrote a response to TNCs, Is the Evidence Ambiguous? https://www.icr.org/article/is-creation-evidence-ambiguous thought he identifies the same individuals as Young-Earth Evolutionists (YEEs – because we need more acronyms:-). He accuses them of being influenced by fideism which I find interesting because I think the opposite is the case. But the crucial point here is that he identifies a difference between traditional creation apologetics–what he calls biblical creationists–and YEEs is the commitment of the former to the idea that the creation clearly testifies to its youth in all respects.  Hebert is convinced there is no ambiguity in the creation evidence–anything that doesn’t appear to point to a young earth is being wrongly interpreted. He wants to draw people into YEC by the self-evident nature of a young earth. He believes that YEEs are set apart from other creationists by their acceptance of ambiguity in the witness of creation to its age. 

Gavin Cox from Creation Ministries International reviewed (Healing Division or Courting Heresy?) Todd Wood’s book with Biology Founder Dr. Darell Falk, The Fool and The Heretic, and was especially displeased with the ground that he perceived Wood to cede to evolutionary theory. The first sentence provides Cox’s feelings about Todd Wood: “Long on rhetoric and short on science, The Fool and the Heretic (F&H) brings together two scientists with (allegedly) diametrically opposite views regarding the evolution-versus creation controversy.”

Similarly, I return to our anonymous YouTube screed about the dangers of The New Creationists with an extended quote showing the strong reactions that this view of the TNCs elicits. This time it is about giving away portion of the evolution is evil argument:

“…but I’ve been saying this for absolutely, for years. It’s all about taking everything the evolutionists do and somehow force-fitting it into creation science. Now I’m not saying we can’t use some of the material from the evolutionary community, like that’s not the point, the point is we can’t take every conclusion of theirs and just force fit it into creation science.  We can’t do that, I mean you can if you want to try but it’ll destroy your science. I’m gonna put a quote up. This is a picture I took from Woods book he co-wrote with Daryl Falk, “The Fool and the Heretic.”  I want you to have a look at the phrasing that Todd Wood uses. Have a look, notice what he says about evolution. Notice what he says about, you know evil, there being tons and tons of evidence for evolution. There’s lots of evidence for evolution. You know, I showed that to a creation, a creation scientist from another country who’s not really aware of what was going on here in the in this country at the time and that particular individual was absolutely floored that a creationist would write that.  But now you shouldn’t be because there is a wide swath of people within creation science, who very few people want to say anything negative about, who are deliberately, or perhaps ignorantly, but some of them at least are deliberately, undermining creation science. You really think that that creation science wouldn’t get infiltrated the same way that the southern Baptist convention has been infiltrated? Do you really think that wouldn’t happen? We’ve been effective so they have to bring us down. I mean it happens all the time at cemeteries, I mean seminaries.” https://youtu.be/SVqFwIOzqNg?t=1036 

This quote beautifully captures the fundamentalist mindset that Ken Ham wants his followers to take up. David French characterized this fundamentalistic tendency recently as an “obsession with the idea that compromise anywhere is compromise everywhere.” Seminaries—I mean cemeteries! –are dangerous, those in academia are dangerous, there are infiltrators trying to suppress the truth of a young earth and that reaches even into the young-earth camp just as it does within our churches.  You can’t trust your pastor if they don’t actively preach against this infiltration.  What must you believe in? Trust Answers in Genesis and others that fight for the truth and call out compromisers (even those that claim to believe in a young-earth if they have any doubts), for they are the only ones who are truly defending what is obvious to all—the youthful appearance of the Earth which testifies to the truth of scripture. 

General consensus on some big questions in creationism and greater ability to adapt to new ideas:  While not the most diagnostic identifier of a new creationist, I think that there are some consensus views among new creationists on answers to some of the biggest questions that have faced creationists that collectively unify them over the competing traditional creationist model.   

In my reading of recent creationist literature—I say recent because some new creationists are old creationist that have modified their views over time—I would characterize them as rallying around the following conclusions or approaches to scientific questions:  1) the Flood/post-Flood boundary in the geological is to be found at or near the Cretaceous Paleogene boundary, 2)  allowing a greater breadth of species diversity that can form from an original created kind than most creationists have in the past, 3)  a willingness to explore a diverse set of naturalistic criteria for defining the boundaries of a created kind, 3) belief that all or almost all fossils called Homo by paleontologists are descendants of Adam and Eve–a more inclusive view of the hominin fossil record, and 4) an acceptance that speciation via natural selection happens but the rapidity of their proposed speciation rates in the past requires that there may be other as yet fully described mechanisms of adaptation yet to be discovered.

Not only is  there greater consensus on these subjects among the TNCs, I also find them to be more adaptable to new ideas and willing to explore new directions as the traditional explanations are found to be inadequate.  Traditional young-earth models are most likely to be sustained by established YEC organizations who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and are less able to incorporate new ideas which may be perceived as undermining their ministry by confusing their donor base.  There is an enormous cost to YEC megaministries to have to reprint, redesign, and relabel if paradigms shift. Stasis is their friend and helps to give the impression of established truths. By contrast, scientific research is dynamic and provides the opportunity to correct misconceptions and errors.  TNCs are more willing to allow new information to challenge the status quo. 

Are there other new creationists out there?

Most definitely!  I focused on these seven because of their association with the New Creation blog. These individuals are either secure in their employment or semi-retired and comfortable with the stresses of being involved in creation apologetics. There are a number of aspiring creationists who gravitate toward the TNC approach and rather than aspiring to be the new Ken Ham.  But I also know of a number of faculty at Christian colleges who are or lean YEC who share in the conviction of TNCs. Though they may share their convictions with TNCs, they may be less vocal or not in positions which allow the freedom to express their concerns with traditional creationism, a la Ken Ham.  Again, notice that those that fit the TNC mold are either in academia or aer independent scholars.

Then, there are the students who have grown up immersed in young-earth educational materials and have entered college dreaming of becoming the next Ken Ham or, at least, working in some capacity in full-time creation apologetics.  Many of them don’t survive their undergraduate education, but some do and go on to graduate school knowing that the credibility that a PhD provides would be useful and provide greater employment opportunities. When they graduate, they may have to decide between a job in academia or working for a YEC ministry.  This is the point where,I think, the social and behavioral differences between  traditional creationists and new creationists determines the path that they take within the diverse community of creationists.   

As I said before, many of TNCs are in positions to train the next generation and essentially train their replacements. This gives them an influence that is greater than that calculated simply by adding up the views of their blogs, FaceBook pages, or YouTube videos.  

My predictions regarding Young-Earth creationism five years from now

Will I be saying, It’s dead, Jim!?  No. Creationism will still be alive, but it may not look the same as today’s creationism.  The influence of The New Creationists will be measurable; they will recruit or attract new members committed to a similar approach and viewpoints.  

The New Creationists will be more organized and better able to pivot on the fly. Through blogs, social media and regional meetings they will find a greater voice, though they may still be underfunded and kept on the fringes of the largest creation conferences and prime speaking opportunities.  There will be active efforts to keep their ideas at bay (see: Heberts article at ICR, Is creation evidence ambiguous?) because of their threat to mega ministries like AiG, who are so reliant upon donations from their devotees to keep their ministries afloat.   

Concluding thoughts

What I have done here is to present my interpretation of creationist history.  My opinions come from reading creationist literature, following their social media and listening to their talks over the past twenty years. Through this experience, I have formulated this thesis and framework for predicting possible future directions that young-earth creationism apologetics may take over the next decade. It may be that The New Creationists are too disjointed and will not be able to sufficiently agree to become the iceberg that upends the Titanic, which is AiG.  The hermeneutical methods, the form of rhetoric, and specific scientific models for earth’s geological and biological origins of AiG and ICR may be so deeply embedded in fundamentalist Christianity that the people will not accept significant departures in both the form of dialogue or the conclusions of traditional creationism. If so, the AiG-way will be perpetuated due to the strength of tradition alone. Time will tell what the future holds forthe TNCs.

Much more could be said on this topic, but I have to cut it off somewhere. I look forward to your feedback and am fully prepared to amend my ideas as new information comes to light.

Coming up:  Part 4 will include links to representative literature and websites of TNCs, critiques of individual TNCs, and a video in which I talk about some of these characteristics in more depth and speculate about the future of YEC. 

Disclaimer:  

In this and the previous posts, I am proposing an interpretation of the current state of Young-Earth Creationism.  It results from my extensive reading of creationist literature, following many YEC leaders and some of their fans on social media and listening to their seminary and presentations for over 20 years. This is my thesis and my framework for predicting possible future directions that young-earth creationism apologetics may take over the next decade.

Just so there is no confusion here, I am not proposing that the members of the New Creation blog are a monolithic group or a different species of creationists set wholly apart from other YECs. I am simply offering up the observation that they fit a general profile that puts them collectively into a different basket from the typical creationists of the past 40 years. 

All YECs have some connections and some common views despite their many differences.  There is no complete discontinuity among any individual or group of creationists.  The director/writer/producer of Is Genesis History? has talked about the future of creationism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJWsG0n-9Ds ) where he emphasizes the need to work together, while acknowledging that there are many unresolved problems in creation science. He may have fostered some collaboration across diverse disciplines and between creationists from what had been different “silos” but the creation ministry that has formed since the film’s release reflects a particular approach to creation apologetics which is not universally held among all creationists.  There are identifiable subgroups or sub-baramin if you prefer within creationism even while they all operate with some shared principles. 

In the last installment of this series I will provide links to literature and websites that best represent TNCs. I will also provide a video reviewing the ideas I’ve presented here as well as reflecting upon what the next steps in this evolution of creationism may be and how those changes may unfold.

Editing kindly provided by MC