Replies

Most of the Genesis literalists I know personally wouldn't bother posting arguments since their belief is a true act of faith. They are quite comfortable learning what scientists believe, or, as you do, see the two as compatible.

The irony is that another view of Geniuses is that it brilliantly foretold of evolution. It says right in G.2:

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. [So man and all things came out of the mist]
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

There is absolutely no conflict in my mind that God inspired the writer of Genesis 2 with an era appropriate insight into the creation, of which science is just now scratching the surface.

Thanks to all of your for your replies. I took a look at the Miller book and will put it on my list.

This wrongly suggests that believing the bible is an non-rational leap of faith. Far from it. If you really want to learn on this particular topic, I suggest you read Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live" or "Escape From Reason" in which he breaks down that falsehood piece by piece.

My personal view is that Genesis was never intended as a science text -- not even a watered-down one. Therefore it doesn't conflict with science in any way.

I don't pretend to know God's motivations, but it's obvious to me that if we can take a six-year-old, who knows nothing, and in a mere ten years have him ready to do college-level work in physics, biology, etc., then surely God could have done at least that well with the simple folk who were inspired to write Genesis. But that's not what was done. That signals to me that Genesis was never intended to be science. We're capable of learning science on our own, and that's what we've done. Genesis, and the rest of scripture, must have a different function.