Recolonisation and Earth History
The Committee of the Biblical Creation Society have noted a web page on the Answers in Genesis web site (here) which refers to several members of BCS (who are also contributors to Origins) as "compromisers" who have "allowed their 'science' to lead their understanding of the Bible, rather than the reverse." The AiG authors are referring to the Recolonisation approach to understanding geology and the fossil record.
As a society, we do not take a collective position on the Recolonisation Model and we recognise that various views are represented by our membership. Our biblical principles are outlined in The Creation Manifesto (i.e. six day creation, no death before sin, global flood, etc) and within these biblical guidelines we welcome discussion and debate from differing perspectives about the interpretation of the scientific evidence (e.g. the identification of the beginning and end of the Flood in the geological record). We think this kind of debate is healthy as we seek to develop young-age models of earth history that deal faithfully with the biblical and scientific data. We do not think the charge of "compromisers" is justified. To put a criticism of recolonisation alongside "articles on compromises of Scripture such as the Gap Theory, the Framework Hypothesis, Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creation" is totally unwarranted. These other views are all clear departures from The Creation Manifesto.
The web article suggests that there are no gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11, but this has not been widely endorsed outside AiG circles. To affirm that genealogies do not equate to chronology is not to adopt a compromising position. There is a diversity of opinion on this matter within the BCS membership - some advocate a no-gaps position, others suggest there are gaps. Indeed, Monty White's own book - How Old Is The Earth? (Evangelical Press, 1985) - says that we cannot insist upon the strict chronology view, while concluding that there are limits to how far the genealogies can be stretched. We fully concur with his 1985 view, but recognise that he has changed his understanding in the intervening years. We might add that our view of the biblical genealogies is consistent with the young-earth view outlined in 1961 by Whitcomb and Morris in The Genesis Flood (appendix 2).
The vision of the Biblical Creation Society is for creation groups to work together to help build biblically-based academic disciplines and to help Christians grappling with these issues. It is a source of sadness to us when differences and accusations affect those actively involved in the creation ministry. We need to find ways of working together and collaborating. We are seeing the tide of opinion change in the UK, and that deserves to have our priorities. It is our understanding that those developing the Recolonisation approach have never avoided dialogue about their thinking. As a Society, we would be happy to see opportunities taken to debate these matters further with our colleagues at AIG.
The BCS Committee (March 9 2006)