Rather, I suspect that theological schools that teach evolution do so because of the way they have chosen to deal with extrabiblical evidence. The current scientific paradigm reads that evidence — selectively, one can argue — as supporting an old universe and an evolved biosphere, and they have decided to bow to that authority (see the Dilbert blog links cited in a previous comment). For believers to unite concerning the age of the earth and the rest of the universe, not to mention other Genetic <chuckle> issues such as the Flood, they will require at least one of two things:

• an analysis of the same evidence that supports a young earth and/or a young universe (see, for example; the book Thousands … Not Billions, edited by Donald B. DeYoung; D. Russell Humphreys’s Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, which addresses my own biggest question concerning the age of the cosmos, is an interesting proposal also).
• a determination to uphold the authority of the biblical text and adopt a wait-and-see attitude concerning specific scientific questions.

As for compromising the truth of the text — yep. And that always has consequences, both present and future. Reason is a God-given tool, and should be used, but it has its limits. Ultimately everyone rests on an authority, whether it’s the authority of the God of the Bible, Carl Sagan, James Dobson, Aristotle, Richard Dawkins, or someone else. Your future — indeed, your destiny — depends on whose authority you choose to honor.

This is a great response to Shirley M. Tilghman’s lecture against ID. I’ve said it before, and I still believe it, that all this boils down to people not “believing” or “recognizing” that a “god/gods” exist. Because if a “god/gods” exist, then they must first recognize we are not in control of our destiny. Secondly, the “god/gods” must be defined (meaning that one religion is right, and all others are not).

But even the blantant denial of wanting to recognize that there is an intelligent design to our lives and universe, does not make it false (especially when evidence of science proves intelligence). To me, it makes the verse “Professing themselves wise, they became fools” a very applicable verse. It baffles me that people would rather believe a bald-faced lie than accept truth. I pray that they turn from their pride, ignorance, and sin, before they meet Truth in judgement. Because when that happens, it will be too late to recognize His existence.

That brings me to the challenge we as Christians (the holders of Truth) face. We have to unite together with what we believe about “origins.” I think this divide on “young vs old-age earth” is what prevents more scientists from coming to know Truth in Christ. To me, this is more important than ID vs Evolution.

My stance is similar to my brother in Christ, Michael Spence, in that we live in a Young Earth/Universe. I believe the days of creation were literal 24 hour days. I cannot help but to feel that those whose stance is “Long Age Earth/Universe” believe this ignorantly, or, in the case of seminary leaders, have compromised the Word of God for government funding. Let’s face it, the “Long Age Earth/Universe” theory derived from seminary. Seminaries are government funded, and have to comply with government standards (which requires teaching evolution). So instead of presenting the “Theory of Evolution” as false, and presenting the scientific theory of “Creation,” it seems the “powers-that-be” in church leadership of seminaries decided to compromise their beliefs instead of making a stand. When it comes to “Young-age vs Old-age” argument, I cannot accept anything but “Young-age” because anything else goes against what the LORD said, as well as the Patriarchs of OT/NT taught. If we compromise the Truth of the Word of God, we’ve made it a lie! That is why our society is in the position that it is in: Christians have compromised the Truth.

Nate