Yep.
Scientific theories generally go and have gone major revisions, even to the point of being scrapped. The Genesis account in the Bible has been the same for thousands of years.
True. However, the Bible was not intended to be a detailed scientific analysis of scientific processes. And, our understanding of that account has changed, at least for many of us.
Many of us now understand that account in a less literal, more allegorical way. Which, actually, I'm not sure isn't the way it was originally understood in the first place. People in the Middle East, to this day, do not necessarily speak quite as literally as we do in the west. It was and is a different culture from the European one we inherited.
It's not hard to imagine someone in the middle east threatening to swoop down on you with an army of ten million men, when what he really means is that whatever size army he does have, he's going to hit you with as hard as he can.
The Bible is adequate to explain things, even those scientific in nature.
Evos tend to be among the worst Bible literalists going, because demanding THEIR own strict, unbending, unrealistic interpretation of Genesis is the only way they can attempt to discredit it, so they either demand their interpretation, or a completely allegorical one. They leave on room for anything else because it’s simply not useful to them for writing God out of the equation.
************************************************************
The Age of the Universe
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts
The creation of time.
“Each day of creation is numbered. Yet there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: “There is evening and morning, Day One.” But the second day doesn’t say “evening and morning, Day Two.” Rather, it says “evening and morning, a second day.” And the Torah continues with this pattern: “Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day.” Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not “first day,” but “Day One” (”Yom Echad”). Many English translations make the mistake of writing “a first day.” That’s because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! Because there is a qualitative difference, as Nachmanides says, between “one” and “first.” One is absolute; first is comparative.
Nachmanides explains that on Day One, time was created. That’s a phenomenal insight. Time was created. You can’t grab time. You don’t even see it. You can see space, you can see matter, you can feel energy, you can see light energy. I understand a creation there. But the creation of time? Eight hundred years ago, Nachmanides attained this insight from the Torah’s use of the phrase, “Day One.” And that’s exactly what Einstein taught us in the Laws of Relativity: that there was a creation, not just of space and matter, but of time itself. “
************************************************************
That does not mean, however, that even if there is an allegorical component to the creation account, that it is also not literal and true. The Bible contains a lot that has both meanings. God did create life and there is NO indication that He used evolution to do it. Scripture is clear that He used the *dust of the earth* to create mammals and mankind in separate acts of creation and that He created birds and fish in separate acts of creation.
Simply because the Bible does not mention the specific mechanism He used, does not give scientists liberty to conclude that He used their preferred method.
I find it amusing to see evos who regularly try to discredit the Bible, then try to appeal to it to win over creationists and other religious folks to the TOE by claiming that God used evolution, when the Bible itself makes no such claim.