I am simply pointing out the similarities in the Genesis account and evolution.
Where? What are these similarities you talk about?
First, Darwinism, is not the theory of evolution. Darwin's book; On the Origin of Species, is not the theory of evolution. It is "his" theory on evolution. "I" have a "theory" on evolution. They did play a part in the development of the theory of evolution, as-well-as "my theory". Darwin's conclusions on the development of species has errors. It can not be taken "literally" as an accurate description of the process of evolution. Darwin knew nothing of "Genes".
Irrelevant for this discussion. What Darwin knew or didn't, is not what's being discussed. You haven't demonstrated how and where "Genesis follows evolutionary timeline quite well (considering their level of scientific understanding)" yet.A quick recap so we don't steer away from the original inquiry: this discussion started with Mr. Pendrake stating that "Genesis is consistent with evolution, even the Darwinian theory", I ironically disagreed, then you came along and said "Genesis follows evolutionary timeline quite well (considering their level of scientific understanding)". Since I have read Genesis, and I know these affirmations to be false, the simpler way to demonstrate this was to quote that very book and point out exactly what they got wrong according to what we know of evolution, and that's what I did. I haven't seen you determine what passages match evolution yet.
The theory of evolution is "a theory", not a law. (even though there are many that wish it would be declared such)
Alright! How do you feel about learning something new today? Let's see:There's no hierarchy whatsoever linking "scientific theory" to "scientific law". A scientific theory is not waiting to become a law. There's no one wishing for that either. No theory has ever been promoted to law. Don't worry though, this is a very common misconception.
You see, in the English language (as well as in Portuguese, my mother language), the word "theory" outside the scientific context is the opposite of "fact". A theory is the same as a hypothesis, it hasn't been confirmed yet. In science however, the word theory has a whole different meaning. Let's see:
A scientific theory, according to the Random House American College Dictionary is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".
A scientific law, according to the National Center for Science Education, is "a descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances".
Both of them explain things, but while a law doesn't explain why something happens, a theory does. For example:
Boyle’s
law
describes how the pressure of a gas times its volume is always a constant, disregarding any pressure and volume change.
The kinetic
theory
of gases explains Boyle’s law's mechanisms. It talks about the kinetic energy of the molecules and how it changes with temperature.
Ohm's
Law
states that amperage is equal to the voltage divided by the resistance. Coulomb's
law
describes the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles.
Electromagnetic
Theory
, describes how electromagnetic fields work, what amperage and resistance are and how they are related, and how to use all that in our favor.
You see the difference? A scientific law will describe what nature does under certain conditions, it will predict what will happen if those conditions remain unchanged whilst a theory explains how nature works. No matter how good a theory is, it will never be anything more than "just" a very good theory.
Speaking of very good theories:
Evolution is a theory as well as a fact. Fact because it has been observed. Predictions have been made and their outcomes observed. Speciation has also been observed. The record of transitional fossils found to this day is overwhelming. The theory part of it describes the mechanisms of natural selection and how through it a gene pool changes over time.
You point to Genesis 1:14 (the fourth day) as an inconsistency, with light coming after plants, Genesis 1:11 (the third day)
Light actually came before plants according to Genesis (1:3). The sun is what came after. I know right?
The word "made" in Genesis 1:16 can also be interpreted as "had made" or "set". That is only a partial explanation.
Ok, let's change "made" to "had made". Evolution is still not described in Genesis. Whales did not come before land mammals.
The "days" referred to in Genesis "may not" be intended as 24 hour periods but, steps of a process.
Yes, I'm using this interpretation also. Still, birds didn't come one step before land lizards. It's Wrong.
Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be taken together as the creation account. I can interpret the first description of creation as the "plan" and the second account as the "action".
I don't see how this makes a case for Genesis being consistent with evolution.What the writers of Genesis got right about "creation" is the same anyone in their time would get: nothing. There's nothing that indicates that "some One" helped them, since they wrote exactly what we can expect of those tribesman to have written. There's nothing in there that jumps out as being timeless. In the case there is and I missed it, please do quote it here and we can move on to discuss ETs and caterpillars all day long