After studying the science quite a bit, I'm inclined to side with Ken Ham on this:
In my lectures, I explain to people that believing in an old earth won’t keep someone out of heaven... Then I’m asked, “Then why does AiG make an issue of the age of the earth—particularly a young age?”
The answer is that our emphasis is on the authority of Scripture. The idea of millions of years does NOT come from the Bible; it comes from man’s fallible, assumption-based dating methods. If one uses such fallible dating methods to reinterpret Genesis (e.g., the days of creation ), the one is “unlocking a door,” so to speak, to teach others that they don’t have to take the Bible as written (e.g., Genesis is historical narrative) at the beginning—so why should one take it as written elsewhere (e.g., the bodily resurrection of Christ). If one has to accept what secular scientists say about the age of the earth, evolution, etc., then why not reinterpret the resurrection of Christ—after all, no secular scientist accepts that a human being can be raised from the dead, so maybe the resurrection should be reinterpreted to mean just “spiritual resurrection.”
The point is, believing in a young earth won’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, but it sure does affect what those that person influences believe concerning how to approach Scripture. Such compromise in the church with millions of years and Darwinian evolution etc., we believe has greatly contributed to the loss of the Christian foundation in the culture.Read the whole thing.