Well, I think it's commendably sensible of you not to be dogmatic about the earth's age. However many young earth creationists are convinced that it is only a few thousands of years old, and a substantial number seem to go for the archbishop Ussher figure of 4004 BC. It is easy for me to imagine that the cognitative dissonance of learning that an age of 4.6 billion years is well supported, might be hard for some people to take, and lead them into a state of denial

I find this an interesting question, BDoggy. I understand that the essence of christian belief is that the risen Christ is your saviour (please correct me if that's wrong). As Kris 777 said, if you believe that, evidence is not all that important (again, please correct me if that's wrong Kris). The evidence is personal, anyway, and not easily persuasive to those who do not share your belief.

But then there's the question of the bible, and a few of the specific claims it makes - that the earth is about 6 thousand years old, for example. When people look to see if this is supported by evidence in nature, they might very well find the answers bewildering. One way to respond to this, if the bible rather than personal experience is the main source of faith, is to reject the idea of evidence altogether.

Am I right in thinking that many christians regard an excessive faith in the literalism of the bible - bibliolatory - as a serious error?