Actually I think your dispute with me isn't over my view of Genesis, but over my view of the theory of evolution. Your explanation of the theory still seems counterintuitive to me.
To make this clear, the position on divine intervention implied by evolution is exactly the same as that implied by gravity (or any other scientific theory). Gravity does not require divine intervention. However, I am sure that nobody today would argue that the existence of gravity in any way implies that God cannot exist.
I never said that the theory of evolution "implies that God cannot exist." I said it conflicts with the account in Genesis.
What the theory of gravity implies is that when matter attracts matter and they move toward each other, they do so as a result of impersonal forces, not because they are commanded by God to move. And since you've stated that the theory of evolution implies the same degree of divine intervention (i.e., zero), it likewise implies that impersonal forces are responsible for the origin of species.
To put it another way, if God actually commanded two pieces of matter to move together, and created a new species out of nothing, then these things would be outside the theories of gravity and evolution. They would not be predicted by them.
The point is that we don't really know if there's a divine intervention involved with gravity. It is possible that the entire universe is designed by God and at the beginning, given a set of laws by Him that have led to the present state. Evolution is certainly consistent with this view.
Whether or not this view is consistent with the account of Genesis depends on how you interpret Genesis. If you read it literally, with no interpretation at all, then yes, Genesis and evolution probably are not compatible. However, if you make allowance for simplifications to allow people to understand the account prior to our discovery of relativity, big bang cosmology, evolution, and other modern science, then Genesis may very well be compatible, at least loosely, with the theories of modern science. Just an example, Genesis says that the first thing created was light. Big bang cosmology says that immediately following the big bang, the universe would have been so hot that radiation would have been energetic enough to form particle anti-particle pairs, and that this is where matter comes from. Thus, radiation is predominant at the first moments after the big bang, ie. light. Genesis talks about the successsion of different creatures that were created. This succession, making some simplifications, is roughly the same as the theory of evolution states.
You are right. I don't argue with you about Genesis, however. That is a matter of faith. I do argue, however, that evolution is not inconsistent with either a belief in God or belief in the Genesis account, especially if you read Genesis as a parable which simply gives us the message that God is responsible for the creation of the universe and what man's spiritual relationship with God should be.Many Christian denominations have absolutely no problem with evolution, most notably the Roman Catholic Church. It may also surprise you that most evolutionary biologists are in fact Christians, just not the ones who are most publicly vocal. My position is simply that evolution neither requires nor denies divine intervention. It says nothing either way. Similarly, gravity (and all other scientific theories) neither deny nor require divine intervention. Science simply does not help us answer questions about God.