Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[SteveII]

To sum this up, I believe that where core theology is not on the line, we can listen to what science thinks is the best explanation and go forward to see where that leads.

Well, congrats on exempting yourself from any form of rational discussion then, because "science is to be respected, but only in those areas where it doesn't conflict with my presupposition," is one of the most profoundly intellectually dishonest things I've ever read.  

I just answered Rhythm:

Because science is always subject to change (and often does). To make a statement like "my theology will change as science proposes new theories" is even worse. It has to be a case by case basis. Is x scientific theory compatible with y theological concept? Perhaps we need to adjust our theological understanding because new facts come to light. My caution is scientific theories. By necessity, they presuppose naturalism and as such may be wrong--especially if a theological concept requires God's interaction with nature. 

In my opinion, science has not produced contradictory proof of anything that would nullify core theology if true.  Sure, our understanding has shifted over the centuries, but looking closer, it really does not affect core theological issues. If science gets around to disproving any core theological concept, then we can look at it on a case-by-case basis.

It really depends on what your core theology is-and it would be your personal core theology, and nobody else's, because the thing about theology is that there are as many different kinds of it as there are theists. The only thing that they really seem to share is that, at their absolute base, core theology really just means "god of the gaps." So long as there's a place to stick the "there's a god," presupposition, it's always amazed me how many central tenets of any given religion end up outside of the "core theology."

No, ontologically speaking, core theological beliefs have nothing at all to do with "god of the gaps". They have to do with specific revelation as to the purpose of the universe, God's place in it, our place in it, the relationship between God and man, and eschatology. 

YEC is a good example. Why hang your hat on something that all indications are that it is not the best explanation for the observations? Time will tell so why fight about it like it is a core theological concept when it really isn't?

Some christians think that the young earth is a component of a strictly literal interpretation of the bible, which is core to the religion in that without it, everything else within is questionable. What metric are you using to determine that they are wrong on this, yet your "core theology" is the really important bits of your religion? So far, you seem happy to just assume that.

I'm sure they do. 

I think Gen 1 was not written to be taken literal. Gen is not a science book. The beginning of Gen is older than the rest and has a different style. It is sufficient to tell bronze age people that the world has an origin and a purpose and monotheism is true (as apposed to other cultures who had polytheistic roots and varied creation stories).

I don't know how Adam and Eve fit in (and when). I believe there was a literal Adam and Eve because Jesus and Paul spoke of a literal Adam. 

The fact that what I call core and what other call core beliefs may be different is just to point out the nature of any complex belief system. If you think I am mis-characterizing common protestant theology, please tell me where.