True... But, that would be very shortsighted of them. Those people and institutions that they are directly harming are the same ones that they rely on for day-to-day life, and the risk rarely, if ever, exceeds the immediate rewards.
There is no reasonable philosophy based on evolution that justifies the consistent commission of conventionally immoral acts. Even homosexuality and promiscuity are immoral under such a philosophy, as it harms the number and quality of children; I could elaborate on this, but I suspect this diversion harms the overall quality of this post.
Force, no. But people who decide to go rob a bank or whatnot are not forced to do it -- they have a set of morals, world view, and beliefs that convince them they can do it and get away with it. The fact is that certain ideas do logically lead to certain decisions. The news is full of stories of people doing things that they think they can get away with.
True... But, the same can be said of certain Christians, correct? Specifically, the ones who say that because Christ died for our sins, they'll still get into heaven regardless of their actions.
One can say that they're not really Christians (and I would agree with you, incidentally), but they consider themselves Christians, and their morals, world view, and beliefs lead them to believe that they can get away with it.
If they haven't properly thought through the ramifications of their actions, I suspect they haven't thought through the ramifications of their philosophy; more than likely, they're just seizing on whatever justification for their actions that they can find.
I guess I am not convinced that there is plenty of evidence that anywheres near proves that the world is old.
Well... I'll provide what proof I can of this later, then. It's a bit late for me to be looking up sources (which means it's a bit late for me to be posting, but I can't seem to fall alseep), or I'd do it now.
But to give you the gist of my argument... Almost every field of science that deals with the natural world is reliant on the belief that the world is old to explain certain facts. People can argue the details of radiological dating and red shift for years (and it's my understanding that some have...), but that so much of science assumes the world is old is a much more persuasive argument in my opinion; not as an appeal to authority, but from the fact that most of science would be wrong if the assumption was false - meaning that all of the predictions that they have accurately made would need an explanation of why they were inadvertently correct.
In short, "It worked" is one of the most persuasive arguments that I can see, and when that argument can be made hundreds of times... Well, it's a bit of an uphill battle to validate another answer.
It may be only because of our limited sight and knowledge that the world does appear old.
Let's that 5 milliseconds after God breathed into Adam and brought him to life, a highly educated modern doctor were whisked in to inspect him and give him a checkup. The doctor would notice several interesting things.
First he would notice that it was a full grown man. "This fellow is at least 30 years old." He would also notice that the blood pumping through Adams heart was well full of oxygen and he would know that Adam had been breathing for some time. Also he would note that Adam knew how to talk and walk, and knowing that these take a couple years to learn, it would be quite clear that Adam had not just come into being.
After all, I'm quite certain that God created Adam with oxygen in his bloodstream, otherwise Adam would have come to gasping for air.
So in the case of Adam, its quite clear that God created him with the appearance of having been alive for some time, and yet the purpose was not to deceive anybody, but rather because God wanted to create a full grown man.
To follow your analogy to its logical conclusion, God may have created the world with the appearance of age, because he didn't wish to wait billions of years for it to finish on its own, and the universe wouldn't function correctly if the hallmarks of age weren't present? I see nothing wrong with that view.
To explain why, returning to your analogy, how would that doctor deal with Adam? As a thirty year old human, as would be appropriate. The ways one dealt with an infant wouldn't be appropriate, but the ways one dealt with an adult would, even if Adam would be technically less than a day old.
Returning this to the discussion of the world, it would still be in our best interests to treat the world as though it were old; if we're dealing, functionally, with a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old, we're best off treating it as a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old.
Can we agree with this point?
Well, I guess that depends on which God you're talking about. But the Bible is really quite clear in describing that God created the world in 6 days. The Genesis creation account even specifies that each day had a morning and an evening. And the whole idea that "days" were eons or whatnot really raises lots of questions without answers. If you would like more information on the problems with the day-age /epoch/era idea, just ask. I or someone else here will be glad to get some information on it.
Well... The bible might be clear on this, but so is science. As both the world and the bible are divinely created, and God doesn't contradict himself, either our understanding of Science or of the bible is flawed.
Working with your idea of a world created deliberately with the appearance of age... Well, again, why can't both accounts be true? God created the universe in seven days, as in the bible, setting out the universe with the natural processes that science is currently discovering. Physically, it's billions of years old, but chronologically, it's only a few thousand.
Now, admittedly, the above paragraph is likely dead wrong, but it's just one example of how the biblical story of creation isn't necessarily incompatible with science. In some way, the bible agrees with science, and science agrees with the bible - the reasoning might seem somewhat convoluted, but it is always sound.
The only problem is, it's going to be found by someone entirely more intelligent and informed than I ^_^0 .
Can we agree with this point?
Apparently many scientists can agree on this point. Science, like any tool, can be used if you follow its rules, even if the conclusions based on interpretation of some evidence is wrong. The scientific method works regardless of how old the earth is and whether or not you believe that God created it in 6 days or not.
I'll try to respond to more when I have more time, but I would like to say that my life's interest from my youth has been science, specifically the physical sciences, and it isn't true that almost every field of science that deals with the natural world is reliant on the belief that the world is old.
As a matter of fact, I'd wager that very little of any of the sciences require an old universe. The only one that I know of is the science of naturalistic origins.
-Jesse
But if the doctor looked around more, he'd find something else interesting -- no evidence of Adam ever having eaten anything, or walked anywhere, or done anything. Oh, and there was God saying that he had just created Adam. So now we have Some evidence that Adam has been alive for only a few seconds, and other evidence that appears to provide evidence that he's been alive for 30 years. And then there's God saying that he just created him. Now, the doctor would want to reconsider and realize that Adam's appearance of age was not because he was old or because God wanted to deceive the observing doctor, but because God wanted to create a full-grown man.
Returning this to the discussion of the world, it would still be in our best interests to treat the world as though it were old; if we're dealing, functionally, with a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old, we're best off treating it as a thirty year old male or a world billions of years old.
Just as in the case of Adam, not all the evidence supports an old earth either. Many believe that the age of the rocks (Incidentally I base my faith on the Rock of Ages, and you on the age of rocks :-) provide evidence that the earth is old. But other things, such as the rate the moon is leaving the earth, the shrinking of the sun, and the like would suggest that the universe is not so old. And then there is, according to the Bible, God telling us, in a round about way, that the universe is not billions of years old, and in a less round about way that he created all the animals and Adam and Eve in six days.
So Why, when our main faith is in God, would we want to choose between two faiths regarding the age of the earth and the origin of life, and choose the one which describes existence without the need of a God, when there is so much indication of an intelligent designer? (Evidences like the unlikelihood of matter coming from almost nothing, and like the forms of life looking like they were intelligently designed by the same being (similar architectural concepts) bilateral symmetry, the great differences between the dumbest(but sane) human and the brightest ape.)
Remember, not all the evidence is on the side of old earth. Whichever side one takes, they will have to put their faith in one set of evidences and disregard another.
Sincerely,
-Jesse