On Feb. 7, 2007, USA Today's religion columnist Tom Krattenmaker in "The Forum" discussed "The Bible vs.science." Many other similar columns could be cited where science is pitted against the young earth creationist position, as if no other position deserves to be called "creationist." Such articles present only one creationist position because the writers think that position is easier to attack. Creationists, they say, believe the earth was created approximately 6000 years ago in six calendar days. According to such authors, "science" presents the rational alternative -- Darwinist evolution. By painting all creationists with the young earth brush, the evolutionary position is made to appear more reasonable and rational.
Mark Noll, religion historian, has stated "The word creationism by rights should define all who discern a divine mind at work in, with, or under the phenomena of the natural world." Included under this definitional umbrella would be the day-age view of earth/life history in which creation days are six sequential, long time periods. This position offers an entirely plausible interpretation of both scientific findings and the Genesis account. Sadly, the media seldom mention the validity of these alternative interpretations. Neither do they wish to characterize them as "creationist," because their agenda would be seriously weakened.
These issues are heavily charged with tension and suspicion among the community of Christians. The search for truth is not well served.