Creation scientists and evolutionary scientists work with the same evidence. The basis for interpreting that evidence depends on starting assumptions. If one accepts that Genesis is literal history, the evidence in biology, geology, astronomy, etc. can be interpreted to support a young earth and young universe. If one choose to accept the opposite, the evidence can be interpreted to support evolution.

The bottom line for me is that I choose to fit science into the Bible, rather than try to adjust my understanding of the Bible to fit the conclusions of fallible human scientists. When the Lord gave the ten commandments (Exodus 20:11), he said, "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,…" I conclude that God knew what He was talking about when He said that.

While I agree that we shouldn't make this an issue in defining who we think is saved and who isn't, I do think that this is a defining issue between those Christians who are accepting of abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, etc. and those who aren't. I know it's a cliche, but if we begin to question one part of the Bible because it doesn't fit our paradigm, we start down a slippery slope.

And to Wright's point: if the point of Genesis is not to figure out how many days creation took (or even one of the points), then why do people make a big deal out of it? I just don't see how it matters how old or young the earth is. I feel like the point is that God created a good world and continues to sustain it (and is, of course, rescuing it).

I listened to N.T. Wright in this video and also to his comments on Adam and Eve. If he really thinks that young earth creationists think the point of Genesis is to figure out how many days Creation took, then he needs to have a talk with a young earth creation scientist to find out what they really believe.