No one has attempted to stop the vast changes (or sprouting of numerous variations), but have simply questioned this; if the holy book is God's word, why should a belief based on a book that comes from God, have to be altered?
Well for starters, not everyone "interprets" any book exactly the same way. Two people can look at almost any book or data set and come out with completely *different* ideas about it. For instance, while I value the Bible, I don't "interpret' that book to support YEC. Catholics do not either. Some folks do. Now what? Shouldn't we rely upon *other resources*, particularly scientific resources when deciding what might be the 'best interpretation"?
Now, I realize not all believers take the bible as seriously as others, but there is a large percentage (at least in the United States) who do and those are the folks I take issue with.
It's not that I don't take the Bible "seriously", I simply choose not to interpret it 'literally' as some people do. I doubt that a Catholic takes the Bible any less seriously than a Protestant.
Again, I am a big proponent of trust and credibility. I have learned that science has credibility and can be trusted to "get it right" even if it takes corrections along the way, because science is not biased in the same sense that belief in a God can be biased.
That's the "naivete" part. Yes, science can be 'biased', just like any other group, and scientific beliefs can be biased. In terms of pure physics, inelastic scattering and moving objects have a demonstrated effect on photons. None of astronomy's hypothetical entities has any observed effect on a photon in any controlled experiment. If empirical physics is the ultimate standard, it's *easy* to demonstrate a scientific bias as well.
Likewise, I lost my faith in "some religion", and I could never go back to my original religious viewpoints anymore than I could go back to believing in Lambda-CDM. I haven't given up on *all* of science however, nor have I give up on *all* forms of religion.
Sure some scientists may really want their ideas to be correct and it could impact their work (they are human), but there are far two many forces (in science) that would eventually expose any short term bias and eventually get to the truth. I can't say the same for religion.
I once too had almost "absolute faith" in science and scientists, but I lost that faith, just like I lost my faith in "Christianity" in my youth. Even though I can embrace a form of pure empirical physics and "science" as it relates to astronomy (EU/PC theory), I could *never* go back to believing in Lambda-CDM. My faith in "science' is not diminished, but my faith in "scientists" (astronomers specifically) has been diminished rather greatly over the last 8 years. It's not that there is a problem with 'science' or the scientific method IMO, it's a problem with human nature that we all want to "be right' about whatever the topic might be. I don't blame science for the sins of scientists, nor do I blame religion for the sins of a few religious folks.
As I have probably made pretty clear in other posts, I personally believe individual psychology plays a large role in whether someone believes in something without objective evidence,
The individual ends up deciding what is 'objective evidence'. Define 'objective evidence'? FYI, I'm fine with "empirical (shows up in the lab) physics", but then you'll have to give up most of physics.
but chooses to deny other other things that have objective evidence. I believed at one point and in my case, it was indeed a psychological need I was trying to fulfill.
You're right that there is a psychological need to 'be right' that can affect everything that we believe in. Letting go of 'being right" however can be as difficult or more difficult in the scientific world as it can be in the religious world.
For instance, YEC tend to believe that YEC is *an integral part* of their religion. It's "important" to them for some reason. It's not important to me however, nor is it an integral part of my religion.
Likewise Lambda-CDM, including *all* of it's hypothetical entities is highly important to some few individuals (typically astronomers). It's not important at all to me personally, particularly since none of those hypothetical entities has ever been shown to have any effect on so much as a single photon in a real lab experiment.
I therefore find that when I discuss these two topics with 'certain' individuals, I get a highly *emotional* (not physics oriented) response. I'm often "blamed" in terms of my views, sometimes even attacked for them. In terms of how many times I've been 'virtually lynched" for my "heresy" on these topics however, I can tell you that I've never been virtually crucified at a religious website over my lack of belief in YEC, but I have been crucified several times for my lack of belief in so called 'scientific' explanations.
IMO astronomers can actually be more virtually violent than most religious websites. I simply don't share your "faith" in all forms of "science", nor do I share your faith that "science" is inherently any more 'self correcting" than religion.
All human psyche's suffer from the same human pitfalls.