I'm not sure where our disagreement is--if Christianity is understood to
*not* primarily be about presenting a biologically, geologically true-to-fact
theory of the origins of the universe, solar system, and life on earth, but
most importantly about other things, then any discrepancies between the
Christian understanding of biology or geology are relatively minor, and can
be worked out with no great disturbance to the rest of the faith. If, on
the other hand, Christianity is mostly about providing semi-scientific
stories about geology, biology, and history, then remedying factual
discrepancies in these areas is a critical task and holds the entire faith
hostage until completion. Further, it sets Christianity (or, more precisely,
this brand of it) squarely against many scientific projects. In this
environment, being convinced that the scientific projects have the better
answers *is* to dismiss Christianity (and its message about God). It has
been set up this way by (some) Christians, and young people (like Will Provine
some years ago) can hardly be blamed for taking it at face value when that
is the situation they have been taught their whole lives.
There are other dichotomies, of course: is the church primarily about
providing entertainment? When people discover that Hollywood is better
at it, this sets them up to decide that wrestling with the issues
Christianity brings up is just not worth it.
for taking
-Greg