Evolution itself has been used for so many just-so stories it is on the verge of becoming a tautology. Since atheists use evolution as an attack on the Bible and conservative Christians, there is more to evolution than a simple “mechanism of creation”. If the atheist crowd could definitively prove false Genesis, then why should they take any part of Christianity seriously?
While the young-earth crowd increasingly grasp at straws, this doesn’t mean we should throw out even a literal interpretation of Genesis entirely. But at the same time this does not mean that we understand the literal meaning of Genesis completely. For instance, due to the fluidity of time as affected by speed and gravity, the explanation in Genesis, even if accurate, may not be clear for quite a while.
While genetics should be the foundation of biology, and I don’t believe that any biologist would say that they completely understand genetics, evolution has taken over as the philosophical “foundation of biology” even while new cellular and genetic mechanisms are discovered today.
“If the atheist crowd could definitively prove false Genesis, then why should they take any part of Christianity seriously?”
Indeed. Why should they?
Good point! In their way (militantly "scientistic") atheists take Genesis just as seriously as (militantly antievolutionary) creationists do, and interpret it in the same (wooden, simplistic, naive) way. In fact militant atheists and militant creationists agree almost identically on nearly every important philosophical premise in the entire controversy, different as their ultimate conclusions may be. They're really peas in the same pod. They're just at different ends of the pod.
This may surprise you, because you probably think that all atheists are militant scientistic atheists (as offended as you would be if the exactly comparable generalization were directed at Christians) but contrary to most normal Christians, theists, agnostics and even atheists who oppose creationism as science, the real "scientific atheists" WANT creationism taught in schools as much as you (probably) do.
They WANT the controversy. They WANT it to be presented as a diametric and exclusive opposition (pick one and only one). They AGREE, of course, with what you just so much as suggested yourself, that if Genesis (literally interpreted) is false then atheism is the natural conclusion.
Oh, sure, the atheists would want creationism presented as a failed alternative, whereas you would want it presented as a viable one, but the SUBSTANCE of it would be little different. Again just the conclusion differs but the premises are shared.
Every branch of science, not just biology, shows that a literal interpretation of Genesis is a flawed interpretation. Hence it is our understanding of Genesis that needs to be reconsidered.
But at the same time this does not mean that we understand the literal meaning of Genesis completely. For instance, due to the fluidity of time as affected by speed and gravity, the explanation in Genesis, even if accurate, may not be clear for quite a while.
That's essentially my point. I don't see a literal Genesis interpretation as a foundational issue, unlike many of the replies to my earlier posts. A literal interpretation, to me, restricts God and forces Him to be restricted by our time and space as well as our conceptions. It forces Him to be a part of creation, not outside of it.
While genetics should be the foundation of biology, and I don’t believe that any biologist would say that they completely understand genetics, evolution has taken over as the philosophical “foundation of biology” even while new cellular and genetic mechanisms are discovered today.
I disagree. Evolution is the explanation for (and the predecessor of) modern genetics. Evolution was around long before molecular genetics and the discoveries of molecular genetics are all consistent with evolution. If they weren't, then evolution would have had serious issues. There are always new discoveries in every branch of science and lots of things we don't know or understand. Those gaps are not indicators of weak theory, but places of future discovery. Science as a whole, and that includes evolution, are fluid and are under constant revision.
I think that is one of many reasons why some people have such a hard time with it. It does not offer an absolute truth like religion does. It is fluid and changing and that can be quite disconcerting for many people. But with religion, it is easy to take a literalist approach and then go on spiritual war with anything that even remotely contradicts that fundamentalist perspective. There is no introspection or questioning of one's interpretation. It is that dichotamy that is the source of friction. One group is fluid and changing, the other is rigid and unyeilding.