What is your take on the theory?
I believe that micro-evolution is well established, and is a very useful science for us to understand, being able to observe and modify changes at a cellular level can be extremely important.
I want to get some help in defining evolution here, what I was taught in public high school is different than what I've seen among arguments dealing with the actual process.
High School version: When a particular organism, whether plant or animal, has a need that threatens it's existence as a species, it adapts to be able to fill that need. These adaptations are a larger version, or the end result of a series of micro-evolution which is an example of adaptation of a smaller scale. I would estimate that of the people I talk to about evolution, about 90% of people who believe in evolution hold this view. Most of these people did not specifically pursue an understanding of evolution, but are content with a cursory understanding.
Do I agree? No. It smacks of intelligence and faith that should only be regulated to philosophical or theological questions. It brings in the question of "why?" which should not be allowed in modern science. "How?" is sufficient.
In bringing up the examples of "adaptation", (under the high school model) one is essentially invoking some
sort of intelligence, either on the part of the individual organism, (modifying its DNA for a specific purpose, then passing that change to its offspring, who then modifies it further, etc), Evolution itself, as though the process it somehow personified, and actually cared about the survival of its "creation", or Mother Nature, again, an appeal to a "higher intelligence."
This was the door that gave "Intelligent Design" scientists hope that they could simply insert "God" for any one of these intelligences that caused the organisms to "adapt". Bad Modern Science either way.
----------
The "survival of the fittest" model: An otherwise healthy, and functioning organism basically developed a genetic deformity, which happened to improve the chances of raising offspring. This deformity, or mutation was successful enough to create a large enough population that was "more successful" than the original organism. This happens enough over the course of about 4 billion years that eventually we show up, as well as all of the other critters we know and love. Those organisms that had "defective" deformities or mutations, died without passing on their destructive genes.
Not particularly romantic, but functional, and possible, if things get very lucky.
Do I believe? No. I think that this is the best scientific theory out there to explain the fossil evidence we do have, but there are still too many missing gaps for me to put "weight" on it, so to speak. The Cambrian explosion bothers me, for instance, the evolution of the eye, not once, but twice, and with the same end result, along separate branches of the animal kindgom (I'll have to get the specifics of that later, if anybody wants it, I don't have that particular resource with me, and I don't trust my memory.) Things like that keep the theory of evolution as a theory -- probably the best theory we have, but still a theory.
Now, that being said, I do believe that the fossil record we have is fairly accurate, I'm not one of those "Evolutionists are out on a conspiracy to eliminate God!" kind of a guy anymore. As Michael pointed out, evolution is not proof against God's existence, but it could be an argument against the proof of God's existence, and that's where the true believer gets stuck.
Do you believe? Why or why not? How do you mix this in with religious beliefs?
Ah, religion. Hmm. My first answer is that in my belief system, it is not beneficial for God to prove himself. I believe that God would rather be worshiped for his character, than his external abilities. (His character has already been debated here on MT). Much like the difference between honoring a Pro Athlete for his skills, or honoring him because he is a good role model. If we get caught up in looking for a "sign" we won't get one, because we will focus on the "miracles" of God, and not the personality.
"This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet not sign will be given except the sign of Jonah" (Luke 11:29).
So the idea of God removing the indisputable proof of his existence by creating the world in such a way that it can't be proven that he created it, actually is very comforting to me, and fits quite well with my theology.
Now, as far as the Genesis question: Can Genesis be literally real if the universe is 14 billion years old?
Before I answer that, I want to make one thing clear: I am trying not to interpret science by the Bible, or vice-versa. I am trying to "overlay" my religious theories over my scientific theories, to see if there is a discrepancy. I would hope that most people here would concede that as fair.
Okay, so Genesis. Since Hawking's book A Brief History of Time has gained more acceptance, there has been a new, small, delicate movement of scientists interpreting Genesis under a new assumption: It is literal, depending on what your perspective is.
Example: When the whole Galileo thing went down, the basic problem at the time was that it went against the Ptolemaic system, which also happened to agree with verses in the Bible that described the sun "going around the earth". Now, the Copernican system is taught even in Sunday school, by the most devout religious conservatives without the slightest hesitation. Why? Because eventually the Church realized that these particular verses in the Bible were discussing not a universal truth, but a truth from particular perspective. For the purposes that the stories were told, even today, if we told the same stories, we would describe the sun "rising and setting." No big deal anymore, we just had to shift our perspective.
So how does that affect Genesis 1? Well, a new understanding of time tells us that in different situations, time travels at a different rate. What a couple of people have done, is to introduce the idea that in some situations, the universe in not really much more than a week old. Most of the Universe, however, is about 14 Billion years old. Different authors have introduced different ways of interpreting Genesis, but the important part is realizing that 6 - 24 hour days from one perspective (traveling just below the speed of light, or close to a singularity, for instance) can equal 14 billion years from another.
Considering that the center of a black hole basically contains a singularity, and that black holes seriously warp time, and that Hawking's Big Bang model starts with singularity, means that, especially at the beginning, time was a strange animal.
Now, I'm not saying that I'm a firm believer in these theories, but it is a way for me to take what I need to from Genesis, but retain my curiosity and love for physics.
So then, the only real sticking point is, who was Adam and Eve?
