This is true also of many of the leaders of EC/TE. In North America, Francisco Ayala (who if not exactly an EC/TE allowed himself to be implicitly represented as one by BioLogos for its first 5 years or so of operation) is 84 years old; Howard Van Till (who was certainly a leading ASA-TE, though whether he is still a Christian today has been questioned) is 80 years old; George Murphy is 76; Darrel Falk is 72; Robert Russell is 71 or 72; Kenneth Miller is 70. Francis Collins is 68 (and can’t speak for TE/EC anyway until he gives up his government job), Ted Davis is 64 or 65, Denis Lamoureux is 64, and Keith Miller about 62. Karl Giberson is 61. I don’t know how old Deb Haarsma is, but she may be over 60. Several of these, such as Murphy, Falk, and Giberson, no longer have university teaching positions, and some of them, like Ken Miller, seem not to have published peer-reviewed scientific literature for 20 years or more.
Over in Britain the situation for TE/EC leaders is the same: Oliver Barclay died in 2013 at age 94; John Polkinghorne is 88; Denis Alexander is 73; Simon Conway Morris is verging on 67.
On average the ID leaders are younger than the older generation of TE/EC leaders. Only Phillip Johnson (who never claimed to be a scientist), Jonathan Wells and Michael Denton are in their 70s. Berlinski is in his 70s, but doesn’t call himself an ID proponent, but merely an interested friend of ID. Of the rest, Behe is the oldest at 66, and still has his faculty position. Hunter is about 61, Meyer and Nelson are about 60, Dembski about 58. I think West is in his 50s. Minnich is about 64, I think, and Snoke about the same. I believe that Snoke and Minnich, like Behe, still hold faculty positions at secular universities.
While some ID leaders are on their way out, I don’t think that ID is on the way out; rather, it’s now in Phase II, where it is trying to go beyond its original insights (Behe, Dembski, etc.) into more sophisticated scientific work (Gauger, Ewert, Marks, etc.). On the other hand, I see EC/TE, at least of the BioLogos and ASA variety, as on its way out, because its posture is primarily defensive and reactive. ID might fail as a research program, but at least it is trying to produce a research program; TE/EC of the BioLogos and ASA variety seems to have no research program, but merely a variety of strategies for trying to win churchgoing Christians over to the acceptance of evolution. It mostly falls under the popularization of science rather than original scientific research, and the popularization of theology rather than the study of foundational theological texts.
Of course, not all people who are called EC/TE would fall under this negative description; I think Peaceful Science is going to attract people who don’t, and that will be a great step forward in the theology/science conversation. Ancient rage against the likes of Henry Morris and Duane Gish, which has so long been the animating motive of American TE/EC, needs to be left behind for constructive conversation to begin.