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.
“Evolution is the explanation for (and the predecessor of) modern genetics.”
This is just not true. Biologists at Darwin’s time believed in continuous heredity, and Darwin’s work was based on this extending to the idea of infinite plasticity of life. It wasn’t until Mendelian inheritance was rediscovered in 1900 that an underlying separate mechanism for inheritance was even considered.
I think biology is still stuck on the infinite plasticity of life model, and has shoehorned random mutation into genetics in order to fit the old paradigm after discontinuous heredity was accepted. Even new discoveries of intracellular mechanisms to fight mutation like RNAi haven’t made a dent in the idea. When it was discovered that the genetic code is not universal, infinite plasticity marched on.
“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.”
The theories within the framework of evolution may be changing and fluid, but the philosophical framework of evolution is defended as absolute truth by proponents in the evolution camp. Stephen J Gould said, “Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.” Science isn’t very fluid when it comes to most observed phenomena. Newton’s laws still hold true in the macro level, and were only refined, and not altogether done away with for relativity and quantum mechanics.
“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.”
You must not visit the Religion forum much. Varying Bible interpretations on the silliest things are fought out tooth and nail. Fundamentalists on all sides call each other blasphemers, heretics, and antichrists. The tiniest hair-splitting difference in doctrine or theology is considered soul-threatening. The new movements shun the old, and the old shun the new. Even within Christianity, faith can be very fluid.