Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[robvalue]

The problem here is that people start with the conclusion already in place that the bible must be true and make sense, somehow. So when it's saying things that are simply untrue, it can't be literal. By this kind of standard, anything can be "shown" to be true though. If you didn't start with this conclusion, you'd instead probably decide it's just a story and has nothing factual to tell us at all. Just some occasional dubious and biased historical accounts.

Still, I'd much rather have theists who bend their religion to fit reality rather than those who bend reality to fit their religion (creationists etc.)

Just like I'd rather have people take their kids to the doctor and then pray after that, I'd rather they became scientifically literate, and then rationalised their religion afterwards. That's much better than stubbornly opposing science (and reality) when it contradicts their narrative, or praying instead of taking their kid to the doctor.