Missouri Synod Lutherans who were trying to find scientific support for a young-earth position did have some influence on Whitcomb and Morris, but not enough of an effect - when the Lutherans pointed out errors, Whitcomb and Morris went with Price. It is true that Ron Numbers comes from the SDA tradition, and so does not delve into the Missouri Synod influence as much, but also true that The Genesis Flood relied primarily on Price’s claims. Modern creation science takes The Genesis Flood as its source, though in fact a number of Price’s favorite targets, promoted as valid arguments by Whitcomb and Morris, are no longer a part of much mainstream creation science. Tracking these changes is difficult, though, as young-earth claims tend to proclaim that “my latest version is the view of all the orthodox throughout church history” rather than “here’s my position, which is somewhat different from this one because of ___”
Note also that Psalm 104 does not follow the sequence of Genesis 1, which would be odd if chronology was the point of Genesis 1.
I assumed that Adam, as an adult, would prefer to speak for himself. But maybe I was wrong.
Wouldn’t be the first time, would it? Of course, a recommendation from me is not a command, so he may yet respond to your off-topic questions.
Here are some references I found.
First, we have George McCready Price describing how he was inspired by White.
We could also look at some material that White herself wrote, and how it compares to modern YEC.
Fossils being buried . . . forests being buried and turned to coal . . . it’s hard to deny the specifics that show up later in modern YEC. White didn’t have some general or vague belief in a young Earth. There were specific concepts that have made their way into modern YEC, and they were amplified by Price who expressly stated that he was inspired by White.
hehehe…see we both have historical heritage biases… a Lutheran is in our midst, call the guards!!! 
For the record, I just wish to ensure that I am not misunderstood, I have no issue with the idea that SDA’s promote a created earth of about 6,000 yrs old. I have no problem that EG White made it known that she believed that too…however, i think its not really something that should be attributed to her specifically because plenty of research and claims about the age of the earth have been documented for millenia (history does tend to take an interest in dates and times and places and people…all these things are intimately looked at).
I might be wrong, but i think that the gist of this question lies squarely on the idea that EG White “invented the YEC wheel”. That is categorically false and the evidence against it is overwhelming.
So, that leaves us with a dilemma, why the resurgence of young earth creationism (and it is a resurgence contrary to the claims of the various posts on this thread)…I havent gone back through all the posts here but I think the answer to this is fairly obvious…to a claim there is always a counter claim. To black there is always white…indeed the two require each other to exist! YEC exists because of the expansion in the study of the sciences and more specifically evolution. Indeed even the timeline is quite consistent with the rise of the two. We have had an explosion of knowledge and study in the last 100 years or so…I am no expert but i believe that is also in direct fulfilment of bible end times prophecy.
An interesting point that i wish to raise at this time is the following:
there seems to be this secular idea, even within this forum, that christian scholars and christian scientists, YEC scientists, they are all naive idiots who do not understand the true study of the profession in which they immerse themselves!
That is a pretty lame assumption on a christian forum where our belief in a creator God, irrespective of whether is an TE model of YEC model, is also biblically stated as being the source of all knowledge!
Just remember that this is your statement, not that of anyone else on the forum. Perhaps it is your interpretation of many of the comments here, and if so would invite you to reconsider, as it is certainly a minority opinion. No doubt many disagree with YEC scientists, and at times consider them not idiots but disingenuous. Which admittedly, may be a bigger issue than ignorance.
And many Christian scholars disagree one with another on many topics. Admittedly, you are not going to find many Christian literalists here except for those who come by to argue their points, which is fine, as arguing those points is fair game so long as done with civility.
A better way to put it is that EG White was very influential in forming modern scientific creationism. It was a direct reaction to the emerging geologic sciences that were clearly pointing to a much older Earth and a lack of a recent global flood. The evidence for this is overwhelming. No one is attributing the basic belief of a young Earth to EG White. What we are attributing to EG White is the attempt to scientifically justify a young Earth.
I don’t think Ms White had any desire to scientifically justify a young Earth. She had her visions to guide her. It was how her visions/writings influenced Price that resulted in the modern YEC movement.
and 50 years later, there suddenly sprang up a movement of phd scientists who spread EG Whites messages of YEC?
The very movement you are trying to claim uses her as its heritage categorically denies it!
The reality is far more simple and not influenced by stupid conspiracy theories…
The reason for the resurgence in a young earth correlates with the appearance of Darwinism and the desire to scientifically address the dilemma of our existence. It is that simple…no conspiracy just pure common sense.
I for one praise God for the rise of Ark Encounter and Answers in Genesis. The reason for my statement here is that whilst the Adventist Church has focused almost entirely on topics such as the Seventh Day Sabbath, The Heavenly Sanctuary, Healthy eating and living…the reast of the world has been corrupted by evolutionary science. Its a shame that the SDA movement did not have a strong marketing plan in the area of creation, however, at the time I think (just my opinion) that the more dominant issues were the Sabbath, Sanctuary, and Health/Education. These were problematic areas in society with a far more extensive history that needed to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Darwinism on the other hand was new and had plenty of Christians in uproar anyway.
Price openly admits it.
I am glad you are comfortable in your tradition. SDAs have much to be grateful for. I have written above how they help with many surgeon trainees in Africa. Blessings.
And I, for one, lament with sorrow to God about the rise of AE and AiG.
The reason for my statement here is that (1) their misrepresentation of Gen.1-11 wipes out and obliterates the underlying purpose of those chapters as they were originally shaped and edited together 2,500-3,000 years ago within their own cultures; (2) this same misrepresentation brings into disrepute the saving gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Don’t worry, they have no traction whatsoever outside the Bible belt, let alone Europe, Canada.
There is no risk to anyone’s eternal life.
Regrettably, young-earth proponents have a lot of traction globally.
Evolution had a fair number of Christian supporters from the beginning of Darwin’s version. However, the misuse of evolution as supposedly supporting unbiblical positions such as atheism, eugenics, etc. has driven much of the opposition. Such misuse is not confined to the fringes; eugenics was promoted as one’s biological duty in many biology textbooks of the 20’s and 30’s.
But the scientific data unambiguously support evolution by natural selection as a good description of the typical process for creating new kinds of organism. Anti-evolution arguments, like young-earth arguments, uniformly do not honor God because they are not good work.
Well what does the Adventist Review have to say?
They certainly seem to agree with what everybody else is saying.
we have already been over this weeks ago…rather than simply reinvent the wheel, go back and read earlier posts that explain why this simply isnt relevant.
For the sake of saving time:
EG White had no scientific training. To claim she was an expert in the field makes a laughing stock of science and scientists.
A person making a claim that we should do something does not mean that we will do something based on that claim.
outside of the US, nothing was made of Prices work until the 1960’s
The real facts are, the “resurgence” in the original creation story and timeline, as well as the age of the earth (as accepted by thousands of years of documented history) correlates directly with the rise in scientific knowledge. If evolution did not propose the heresy of Old Earth, creationists would not have desired the need to defend their long held doctrine!
It is a simple question of cause and effect…period. There is no more to the argument than that answer. Continuing to harp on about ridiculous conspiracies is simply fostering redneck stupidity. A good conspiracy theory really only ever works on very very stupid people…and its unfortunately usually proposed by very intelligent people who desire acclaim and control. I very much doubt this forum will have any negative influence on the creation science movement…their theology is rapidly expanding creation science knowledge…the evidence they are now providing is i think is significantly more compelling than the evolutionist answer to the origins of the big bang.
Hawking told StarTalk host and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.6 Mar 2018
The answer, he said, is simultaneously simple and incredibly complex: There was nothing . “Nothing was around before the big, Big Bang,”
Science does not consider doctrine, heresy, dogma, or proof texts.
Alas, here in the UK, YEC does have traction. Recall, too, that a few official AiG speakers are UK people. Looking on their website for just one UK speaker shows six events here within less than six months.
YEC’s science-abuse, rooted and grounded in their Bible-misinterpretation (I resist, for the moment, the urge to say “Bible-abuse”) of Gen.1-11, is presented unquestioningly in many evangelical churches. A few months ago, a close family relative, fresh from a university science degree, said to me “you don’t really believe that man descended from monkeys, do you?” (I’m usually poor at remembering exact words, but I remember that.) And in student environments here, YEC holds great allure in evangelical circles. (At Durham, an extra-curricular lecture by a O.T. theologian to question it was massively over-subscribed with queues down the corridor.)
YEC presents a view of God’s creation which contradicts the God-given science. Its stance presents itself in opposition to “love the Lord your God with all your mind”. The thought that “Christians deny science” is so loudly presented in society that even their supposed opposites, the new atheists such as Richard Dawkins, can build their Christ-denying arguments on the sure (to them) foundation that “Christianity denies evolution”.
Dawkins attempts to drive people away from the Christian faith, and it is YEC that enables him to do this. YEC abuses scripture; and Dawkins builds on YEC’s own abuse to dissuade people against finding “the words to eternal life”.