I agree. Scientifically, we should keep a strong distinction between the GAE and any YEC-GAE variant that pops up. I’m not advocating for this scientifically, to be clear.
Thanks @nwrickert, though I do cringe at the term “creationist”, because I ground myself in places other than creation (or evolution). I am “biblical”, but I would say I am a Christian that “affirms the biblical doctrine of creation.” I’m probably splitting hairs here, but it is what it is.
I’m pretty sure @AJRoberts would say the same about herself too.
There are a lot of unknowns here. It could be fast, or it could be slow. I think we will have some publicly clarity on this, perhaps, in the next 5 years. There is already private evidence we are making a lot of headway among YECs, which we haven’t made public. When that becomes public, and if it grows, it will be a game changer.
We can already see this happening among OECs and the GAE. Look over the endorsements and count up the OEC’s that endorsed the book, and note what they say. They are adopting the GAE as a theologically legitimate position, even if they aren’t ready personally to adopt it. In the coming year or so, I know for a fact that some leading OECs will go public with the GAE as their personal view. They won’t consider themselves TE or EC (because of Scriptural reasons, not scientific reasons), but they will likely affirm evolutionary science.
The GAE (with evolution outside the garden) may just be absorbed as just another version of OEC. It will be considered OEC, because it enables an OEC reading of Scripture, not because it denies evolution. That is, from my point of view, the definition of success. This, it seems, is very likely to happen over the next couple years.
The question, then, is about YEC. Could the same thing happen in YEC? It is possible, but far from certain. Let us see what happens.