Ask creationists if their idea evolves and you will likely hear that it can't. Their idea is a solid, unmovable thing. It upholds a single truth for the ages.
The reality, of course, is different.
There are many ways to be a 'creationist.' The labels YEC and OEC and ID were invented to accommodate the varieties of belief that fall under the category. The ID advocates of recent years were keenly aware of this. They promoted their idea in part as a 'big tent' under which the varieties of creationist belief could unite.
The big tent was not so big, though, as to include theistic evolutionists. No matter how devout theistic evolutionists may be, or how much they believe God stands ultimately behind all things, creationists deny them recognition. Theistic evolutionists cannot join the creationist club because creationists view them as people who have given away the store.
The term 'creationism' thus does not refer to a single idea people believe. It takes its meaning from a single idea they deny. The idea that unites creationists is the theory of evolution. They are against it. 'Creationism' is really evolution denial.
Evolution denial goes through its fashions and fads. Today you see YECs attributing almost any geological phenomenon to a global Flood, maintaining a 1970s fashion set by Whitcomb & Morris. But where did the water for the Flood come from? Morris made much of a 'vapor canopy' that supplied it. YECs today are loathe to mention this idea. Morris's book made much of the human footprints displayed by Carl Baugh. Prominent YECs now repudiate Baugh.
Many assertions are being discarded. Answers in Genesis maintains a page showing 'Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Make.' In recent years the list has lengthened substantially.
Creationists as recently as the 1980s denied biological evolution in any form. They denied natural selection, benign mutation, speciation, and genetic relationships between species. Now they admit the reality of all these things.
Creationism is evolving.
The creationist species faces a transformed environment. The burgeoning number of discoveries in recent years presents mighty challenges to its ability to survive. Its survival is further threatened by the ongoing rejection of creationism as science in US courtrooms. The species's vital characteristic--denial--is growing ever harder to maintain.
Creationism has responded to this threat as bacteria respond to a new antibiotic. Some organisms disappear. Others mutate.
What changes have you noticed in creationist beliefs, tactics, fads and fashions?
What further evolution of the creationist genome do you anticipate?
Which mutation of the creationist genome do you think is best adapted for survival in the new environment?
Which variant of creationism is least adapted for survival?
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Natural evolution of the text.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Punctuated equilibrium.
I don't expect it to evolve as drammatically in the next couple of decades. I think they are now backed deep into a corner. The only "out" left now seems to be to simply deny evidence. Any further retreat and their position is in shreds.
YECs have retreated so much you have to ask what's left. They allow evolution itself now. They even depend on it to get out of jams. We've seen it here. YECs can invoke more evolution in a shorter space of time than Charles Darwin on a fourth fifth of Jack Daniels.
So what's left to circle the wagons around?
Special creation for humans, obviously. What else? Anything?