When and why did the modern literal 6-Day creation theory become popular?

When and why did the modern literal 6-Day creation theory become popular?

We can't say for certain, as we don't know if God revealed the contents of Genesis 1 immediately on Day 6, or if He didn't reveal it at all until Moses wrote it down. However, many have contended that the tonal shift partway through Genesis represents a transition between recording what had previously been oral tradition to events of which Moses had more direct knowledge. In any case, however, there is every indication that Jews from the time of Moses onward believed in a six-day Creation, and that this view was naturally taken up by early Christians.

It's also worth noting that Peter explicitly refers to Creation and the Flood as historical events (2 Peter 3:5-6).

The contention that six-day Creation is a modern view is simply false. We can see that it was, and to some extent continues to be, the prevalent view among Jews:

• Creation of the World
• Creation Days and Orthodox Jewish Tradition

It remained popular among early Christians, though it would significantly give way to the view six days somehow "limited" God, and that God created everything fully formed in an instant:

• The History of Interpretation of Genesis 1–11
• The Early Church on Creation

This trend was reversed around the Reformation, with Luther and Calvin in particular arguing for six literal days. This, of course, does not match the original contention:

The Day-Age theory or the Gap theory[,] at least up until WWII, [...] were the predominant Creationists views.

While I do not believe such views were unheard-of, a more careful study shows that it is only after Uniformitarianism started to take hold (circa 1800 AD) that increasing numbers of Christians began to reinterpret Genesis 2-11 as something other than plain history.

One might also consider how any alternative view is supposed to be reconciled with God Himself saying "for in six days the Lᴏʀᴅ made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11).

As for what accounts for its resurgence... as another answer noted, Morris' "The Genesis Flood" was a major factor. More generally, strict Uniformitarianism has been in retreat as it is demonstrated over and over that Catastrophism is a more likely explanation for many phenomena, and as good science has uncovered many flaws and inconsistencies in Uniformitarian claims.

6 day creationism was in retreat for 100 years from the publication of Origin of Species in November 1859 until the publication of another book in 1961.

For that 100 years many Christians, even some of the most conservative, such as Arthur W. Pink, were interpreting Genesis in the light of "science". A.W. Pink believed in the Gap Theory, which had been promoted by Thomas Chalmers in the 1800s, who also, in other respects, was a conservative evangelical.

Young Earth Creationism gained something of a renaissance with the publication of "The Genesis Flood" by Dr John Whitcomb and Henry Morris in 1961. This book was a best seller amongst evangelicals, being reprinted 28 times in the subsequent 25 years, and put literal views of Genesis 1-6 back on the front foot.

I think a look at publication "The Genesis Flood" is the place to start when looking for reasons for the modern YEC phenomena.

The other cause of the modern YEC movement is that Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be easily accommodated with either the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory, or Theistic Evolution. What I mean is that these opposing theories have weak Biblical support, no support, or are actually contradicted by the plain reading of Genesis 1 & 2. I think I have been through phases when I have sought refuge in each of them, only finding that each one in turn is simply not sustainable if you also want to take scripture seriously.

The modern YEC movement now is sustained by a virtual flood of books (if you pardon the phrase) which undermine evolutionary theory, some by evangelicals, some by Roman Catholics (Michael Behe), some by agnostics (Michael Denton) "Evolution - a Theory in Crisis". Personal favourites are "Bone of Contention" by Sylvia Baker, "Signature of the Cell" by Stephen Meyer, and "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip Johnson.

I suppose the best known YEC advocate today would be Ken Ham. Ken would disagree with "The Genesis Flood", Appendix 2, which is at pains to point out that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are not literal father-to-son genealogies but contain gaps. The upshot of this is that Ken Ham would say we can know that the Universe was created about 4000 BC whereas The Genesis Flood does not, and cannot, offer a fixed date for the creation. The Genesis Flood satisfies itself with the observation that the early human civilisations, and the earliest writing we know of (Sumerian) are on a time frame more in harmony with the Bible than with evolutionary theory's millions of years.

The Genesis Flood finishes with:-

"It would seem to us that even the allowance of 5,000 years between the Flood and Abraham stretches Genesis 11 almost to the breaking point. The time has come when those who take the testimony of God's infallible Word with seriousness should begin to look with favor upon the efforts of those who are examining and exposing the unwarranted assumptions and false presuppositions of uniformitarianism as it applies to the dating of early man."

In that Abraham was born, according to the Bible, 2169 BC, and in that the authors had earlier argued there were not many thousands of years between the Creation and the Flood, it can be seen by this closing statement that the authors were arguing that, even though the universe is not Ken Ham's (or Archbishop Ussher's) 6,000 years old, it is still less than 12,000 years old.

Firstly I want address some of your basis for the question,

Creationists themselves would strongly challenge the claim that Young Earth Creationism has only recently become popular, see here:

http://creation.com/thomas-aquinas-young-earth-creationist

http://creation.com/orthodoxy-and-genesis-what-the-fathers-really-taught

http://creation.com/augustine-young-earth-creationist

Also consider that James Ussher at least as early as the 17th Century attempted to calculate the age of the earth and came to a value < 10,000 years:

http://creation.com/archbishops-achievement

Now as far as your question is concerned,

I would challenge the claim that Young Earth Creationism is even today the popular view of Genesis:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/11/polls_americans_believe_in_evolution_less_in_creationism.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809915/The-Big-Bang-evolution-real-carried-God-says-Pope-embraces-modern-science.html

https://ncse.com/library-resource/what-do-christians-really-believe-evolution

"Table 1 demonstrates that of Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education!"

At best I see creationism being treated as a rather uncomfortable topic with most Christians, even if they believe it, preferring to not talk about it. Of course this is just personal experience.

The more specific you go, the less popular a 'literal 6 day interpretation of Genesis' becomes.

The most likely reason that Young earth creationists get the 'most' attention would be that they are in the most direct opposition to orthodox scientific consensus and are almost exclusively regarded as being on the fringe of science (indeed most secular proponents consider creationism patently unscientific, even anti-science or pseudoscience).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

The reason that it may seem as if YEC was not discussed prior to the 20th (or 19th) centuries is because it may not have been considered a problem. Why would early church fathers and other Christian thinkers engage in a rigorous examination of the age of the earth if no one was really challenging the idea? It's hard to get evidence for a claim like this though because... well, if noone was talking about it, then we wouldn't have any evidence.

Here I think it is a case of absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Another reason that creationism may appear to have gained traction post-WWII is that many of the Creation organisations that we're familiar with were only established in the 20th century.

Organisations such as Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, Creation Research, Institute for Creation Research, have resulted in a more formal distinction between Young Earth Creationists and other flavours of Genesis interpretation.

See here also:

http://creation.com/about-us

"In 1977, the first official creationist organisation in Australia was commenced-the Creation Science Association (CSA) of Adelaide, South Australia."

https://answersingenesis.org/about/history/

http://www.icr.org/article/science-man-god-henry-m-morris/

In 1961, Dr. Morris and Old Testament expert Dr. John C. Whitcomb published The Genesis Flood, the book that was widely acknowledged even by prominent evolutionary paleontologist Stephen J. Gould as "the founding document of the creationist movement."

This does not necessarily mean it has only risen to popularity in the 20th century. These organisations were established to formally challenge the rising tide of evolutionary biology in secular science since it was popularised by Darwin in the 19th century and then re emerged as the Modern evolutionary synthesis with the work of early 20th century statisticians such as Fisher and Haldane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_genetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher

In light of the above sources mentioned, it seems reasonable to conclude that the evolution/creation debate in general has become a popular topic in lieu of the rise of the 'modern evolutionary synthesis' and 'strict YEC' at around about the same time:

Dobzhansky, Th. 1951. Genetics and the Origin of Species, 3rd Ed. Columbia University Press, New York.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10128/

By merging the traditions of Darwin and Mendel

The last part of your question regarding how DA and TE are being considered heresy (or nearly so) by some literal 6-Day creationists

It's important to note that prominent organizations like CMI are emphatic that

Christians can still be saved despite believing in it [evolution]

http://creation.com/can-christians-believe-evolution

However, they make their arguments based on a few main points, here are some examples:

• Jesus (according to them) affirmed the historicity of a literal 6-day creation
• Fundamental to evolution is that it is an unguided process (which is true!)
• Genesis (according to YEC) is blatantly clear on the literal 6-days

http://creation.com/some-questions-for-theistic-evolutionists

In conclusion,

YEC came to the spotlight around the same time (or shortly after) the modern evolutionary synthesis was formulated, which makes sense.

YEC gets the most attention because it is the most extreme opposition to orthodox evolutionary biology.

YEC does not consider other flavours of Genesis interpretation 'heresy', however they do strongly criticize their views and defend a plain reading of Genesis.

I hope this provides some insight.

First of all, the dispute has definitely been around for a long time. Here is a link defending an allegorical day interpretation. It references Origen (not a saint) and St. Augustine:

http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis

I also seem to remember St. Augustine musing about there being no sun or moon on the first day of creation, so what was the meaning of "day". I think it's somewhere later in Confessions when he is meditating on the nature of time.

And here is a link using the writings of St. Basil to defend a literal day period for creation.

http://creation.com/genesis-means-what-it-says-basil-ad-329379

The debate clearly existed in the church pretty early on, but it was never accepted as grounds to accuse someone of being a heretic, no councils of the church mention the dispute is what I mean (that I know of).

As for our current state, I think Ross Douthat's book Bad Religion does a good job of addressing this. So I'll sort of paraphrase him and hopefully not oversimplify too much.

In chapter 1 Mr. Douthat points to 2 major movements within Protestant Christianity at the beginning of the 20th century: modernists/accomodationists who want to change the church's doctrines to be more palatable to skeptics and fundamentalists who want to preserve the church's beliefs. Modernists were willing to challenge the inspiration of the scriptures, virgin birth, reality of the miracles of Christ, and even the resurrection and incarnation. Fundamentalists insisted on preserving all these doctrines and that you had to believe these these things to be Christian. The picture given is that some, or most, fundamentalists became overzealous in their defense and strayed into an error of their own by insisting on literal interpretations simply to oppose whatever modern theory they felt threatened them and condemn Christians who entertained them.

He specifically points to the 1920's as when the terms "Evangelical" and "Fundamental" became associated with strict biblical literalism. This decade is when the biblical literalists in Tennessee took the issue to court and attempted to ban evolution from school textbooks and lost.

However, even orthodox Protestants weren't anywhere near uniformly "fundamentalist" in this sense. Some more specific information comes in chapter 4 of the book. In the 40's Fuller Theological Seminary required its students and faculty to affirm that the Bible was as "exact a guide to geology and biology as it was to the history of salvation". However in the 60's the position of most of the faculty and students shifted to limited inerrancy, meaning that the Bible was only inerrant in the realm of theology. 2 professors even published a book with the thesis that the rigid understanding of inerrancy was invented in the 17th century. This triggered a dispute which resulted in the "International Council on Biblical Inerrancy" which defended a strict position, but with allowances. J.I. Packer (supporter of strict inerrancy) is quoted at the council as saying:

I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture ... but exegetically I cannot see that anything Scripture says, in the first chapters of Genesis or elsewhere, bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or another ... Scripture was given to reveal God, not to address scientific issues in scientific terms

So Mr. Douthat concludes that even though inerrancy was upheld in the 70's its implications were reinterpreted to allow for non-literal understandings and truths.

I suppose that his view can be summarized as fundamentalism rising to answer (badly) the challenges of modern scientific skepticism and liberalism. He even labels fundamentalists as anti-intellectual in some cases.

-- Edit, remove stuff about Galileo, cuz Wtrmute is probably right.

I'm not sure I'd point to the 20th century as when fundamentalism kicked off, you can probably read lots of church history and find disputes between those who could be termed "fundamentalists" or "liberals" and you may find yourself on one side or another depending on the context.

I would say the currently the literal trend seems to be subsiding. Just the other day my Evangelical friend (who listens to way too many podcasts) noted how allegorical interpretations are becoming more popular. You could even point to Rob Bell as an example of an Evangelical pastor who has some very allegorical (and probably heretical) interpretations.

A real answer to this question probably involves a whole big study of 2000 years of Christianity. I don't necessarily think taking creation as a literal 6 days is bad, but I think that Genesis has some much deeper spiritual meaning that will be missed if it is simply used as a beating stick for more liberal Christians.