In many ways, “After this, therefore because of this” does fit the 1960s in the United States, particularly in light of the entire civil rights movement, or perhaps rather set of movements. However much of that was motivated by expectations formed during the Civil War, WWI, WWII and then Police Action in Korea, when the military service and often blood of sons and daughters of non-white Americans was a gladly accepted sacrifice in exchange for continued enforced, unenforced and underhanded racism. The immorality of our racist American culture and laws is older than our country and was a major factor in the 1960s. The upheaval had been centuries in the making and was the result of inconsistancy between what our national mythology and practice.
The time frame of many things on this list is simply wrong. Porn and sexually abusive industries have existed since sex existed. It’s taken different forms, and those may change, but porn has never been a problem in and of itself.
“Communistic atheism tied to Darwinism” existed well before the 1960s as did Nietzsche’s claim that “God is dead.” This doesn’t work as part of an argument for a 1960s watershed.
Naziism was tied to a lot of things. They also valued the family and gave women awards for bearing more children — I know a LOT of church families these days who value HUGE families and intende to have as many kids as possible. Guilt by association?
Free love has been practiced as long as there has been sex. It was just more carefully covered up, when it was illegal. The history of VDs is revelatory.
LIkewise, abortion was praciticed since there has been pregnancy, except illegally and therefore in ways that often lead to serious illness or death of the woman. It wasn’t new in the 1960s. It wasn’t quantifiable before it was legal.
The argument left out the availabilty of convenient, effective, reversable and eventually legal forms of birth control that helped reduce the number of pregnancies women had to experience, whether they wanted to or not.
Likewise, the breakdown of marriages has existed since there has been marriage. Before no-fault divorce, though abused women and children rarely had a way out, and to take it was social suicide. Just embroider the big red “D” on the front of your blouse. Failed marriages were easier to sweep under the rug and ignore, before divorce was more widely accessible. But they were no less immoral, and the suffering of women and children stuck in them was tremendous.
When has there not been urban violence?
And as for Stonewall, a social minority demanded equal protection under the law in the U.S., where equal protection is codified but not practiced. And that fight continues for all kinds of social minorities today.
So, no. The cherry-picked arugment does not work.
Likewise, what IS an appropriated response from Christians to any form of evil? Evils like racism, child abuse, abuse of women, unjust legal systems, legal favoritism and the like? Systems that make life harder for any group that doesn’t “get in line” with the common morality of the majority group, or that looks different, even though they are peaceful, productive members of society?
How do Christians deal with the “problem” of people who don’t honor our God or give thanks to him as also included in Romans 1? Should we rid society of them as well? Legislate them out of existence? (That’s been tried. Here.)
Again, more cherry picking.
Whatever it is, the argument in the OP is not a historical one.
There are reasons, I think, that YEC and other science-oriented apologetics have become louder and louder voices among Christians in the U.S., but they are different from this so-called historic argument.
Any YEC who is trying to use it to support the need for YEC or to justify YEC will be just as disinterested in actual history than they are actual science. These kinds of discussions have to take place over a long, long period of time and can only be fruitful, if the people involved are interested in understanding real history rather than one of the many historic mythologies that is currently in the air. The same is true for discussions about real science, which also requires, in my view, the expertise of folks whose work is above my paygrade.
I do think it would be interesting to explore the history of the ramping up of the “science” oriented apologetic systems that are so shrill these days. I think there are probably many layers, but mostly motivated by fear and power.