That is an interesting theory, but I don't see any basis for it. It sounds rather conspiracy theoryish to me. Obviously scientists require funding to do their work, but the type of equipment that is used now for scientific research is outside the scope of some poor guy working in his basement. Francis Bacon never had the opportunity to operate a Large Hadron Collider out of his personal laboratory.
The Church has never made a dogmatic statement on the age of the world, and I don't believe it ever will. The age of the world really has nothing to do with matters of faith, so there is really no reason to address it. I look to the Church for spiritual development, not to teach me science just like I look to scientific research to teach me about science and not my faith.
It has a conspiracy flavor i agree. But this is what i think seeing what happens in the world today, i believe we reached a point where the rulers of this world want to get rid of the Christianity. For example religion has its place even in the Declaration of Human Rights. Yet today the so called "sexual orientation" seems to be more important than religion. There is no "sexual orientation" in the Declaration of Human Rights, but in today`s world you are not allowed to have doubts about "sexual orientation" but you are allowed to interfere in or make fun of other people`s religious beliefs.
Then i see scientists like Michio Kaku or any other physicist or biologist. Every time i see them talking about nothing but having loads of expensive equipment at their disposal. And they are all very rich people. But a lot of the physicists today are wasting their time dreaming about the string / super string theory with absolutely no results. Same for the biologists. I heard scientists saying that science is not about truth but a system of inquiry that seeks to build falsifiable models of the physical world. Personally i believe they can define science whatever they want and play about science however they want but we are paying too much for this.
You are right that there is no dogma about the age of the earth or even about evolution. But no dogma means no dogma, it doesn`t mean i have to accept the other view.
The reason for why i have big problems with evolution is the poor quality of arguments they have. For example if i hear a protestant pastor saying : " Having stars 5 billions years away from earth doesn`t mean the universe is old, maybe God created also the light so that will be visible from Earth ", i agree with him. As silly at it sounds, it makes sense for me, if the Earth is the central point of the creation then that is a good argument.
But here are some arguments i hear from the scientists : " Who created the creator ? " ( Stupid because not knowing that doesn`t mean we are not created ). " Universe is not fine tuned because in 5 million years X galaxy will collide with Milky Way." "Universe is not fine tuned because life is not possible everywhere in the universe." "Universe is old because otherwise there isn`t enough time for chemicals to evolve / planets to form " . "Do you have a better explanation ? " ." It is false because the explanation is more complex than the thing you want to explain ".
I don`t remember all of them, there are hundreds of arguments like that and my mind refuses to spend more than 5 seconds on each one. All i can do is to put my faith in God and to hope that one day ( after i die ) i will find the truth. In the meantime i enjoy seeing how the atheist icons are taken down from walls :
This is news from this monthhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130802101900.htm
And notice that the non scientists from the Discovery institute were talking about this 2 years ago :http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html
"But the argument from junk DNA—also called “ancient repetitive elements” (AREs)— depends on the premise that no function will ever be discovered for ARE
s. Collins’s faith in Darwinian theory would be severely hamstrung if the premise were shown to be wrong. It is a faith based on gaps in scientific knowledge. Hence, “Darwin of the gaps