There is a raging debate in this country. It is the debate over how old the universe is. As each year goes by, more and more people are being converted to the proposition that the earth is less than 10,000 years old; much to the chagrin of the established theorists whose latest pontification puts the age of the universe at about 15 billion years.
But, what difference does it make? What are the real issues behind the debate? They focus on one issue: the integrity of science as we know it. More and more scientific evidence is surfacing daily that the old theories have serious problems, but many in the scientific community do not want to jettison those theories.
For ego reasons. Rumor has it that scientists are afraid that if they admit that they bought into flawed theories, and then promoted them loudly and authoritatively, their credibility will go down the tubes. This means that truth is not the issue; power is the issue. Credibility is power. If people believe you, they will accept your leadership over them. If they don't believe you, not only will they reject your leadership, they will ridicule and debase you...especially if they find out that you have been lying to them for ages.
Make no mistake about it, the issue is power and control. The human lust for the ability to call the shots is universal (that's why there is so much political turmoil--everyone wants to be the one who gets to set the agenda and determine policy). It is as old as Genesis 3 when the devil tempted humanity with the promise that they could be as God.
Science, so-called, is enslaved to this lust for power. It is blind to facts that discount its theories precisely because it knows that if it acknowledges error, it will lose its following. Unfortunately, science isn't the only arena that is dominated by this lust. Religion is also. A great deal of the upheaval these days is caused in the name of religion, not because truth is at stake, but because the exercise of power is at stake.
So, the debate over the age of the earth continues; not because of the facts, but because of the competing ego bondage of men who want to control other men.
The bottom line of the debate is whether God's description of the creation can be trusted as it was given in Genesis 1 and 2. Those who want to control men obviously don't want God in the equation (scientists)--unless He is on their side (religionists).
The fact is God is already in control and whether men believe in His testimony or not won't change that control one iota.
There is, however, a good reason for believing in His testimony: it delivers us from the need to be in control, and minimizes the level of conflict with which we have to live. You see, for the person who really believes God is in control, there is a serenity that comes from faith. Those who don't believe must strive for control because that is the only way they can get what they want. Believers rest in their confidence in God. Unbelievers struggle with the uncertainty of life.