What?  When have I said that?

I haven't, have I?

Crap, sorry.  I was just about to edit my post, after I saw your thoughtful response that wasn't a lecture at all.  Now I look like a jackass.  I was assuming that by arguing that Genesis wasn't metaphorical, you'd be claiming that every word is true, which would mean you're not interpreting the word of God.  You're just reading it.

 Oh, I see.  No problem

Although I can't say I blame you for jumping the gun a bit.

Right, but see, it's not just creation that would be metaphorical - it's basically all of Genesis. Adam and Eve? The Flood? All of that? Metaphorical!

(also evolution is not pain and suffering it is the triumph of life over adversity, that is "very good")

 If all of Genesis could be taken metaphorically, then context would be next to useless (or, so I find).  Furthermore, an omnipotent God could find thousands of better systems that would not involve killing off every unfit creature until the right one randomly mutates apt genetics (of course, perhaps earlier) to survive (thus, putting such a system on the "very bad" part of the scale of choices, I would think). And while evolution certainly does end up with a life that eventually does prevail, it also has about a trillion times more death and pain along the way.

The way I look at it is like this: people might have had an understanding of the universe at the time of the writing of the Old Testament that necessitated the idea that it was a historical account of the history of the world. THat doesn't bother me. At the time, people thought that the sky was holding back another ocean - that's why it was blue. The Flood was God poking holes in the roof of the universe, letting water flood in. That's why the Ark was sealed so much in its rafters - it was a freaking submarine.

Anyway.

I don't mind the idea that a creation myth would rise up out of Judaic beliefs, and I don't mind the idea that this would run contrary to our current understanding of the universe. It doesn't matter. I was raised to believe that God's highest demand of all His children was that we use our faculties and our reason and our free will - this last most importantly. We have to question God. Blindly accepting the teachings of the bible is a sin because absolute submission is throwing away the most important aspect which was carve into humanity.

So whzt does that mean?

If our knowledge of the universe runs contrary to religious doctrine - particularly the parts that don't matter, like "historical" accounts or creation myths - then we must change our beliefs to accomodate our knowledge. To do anything else is a mockery of the faculties that have been granted to us.

I got many problems with this interpretation. I know, that religious extremists like you, make up many exceptions to this rule. What about new dog races? Oh yeah, that's not a new species, but it shows in a little, that very good, doesn't mean that changes must be bad.

Next thing: I assume you got a car and I know, that you use a computer and the internet. In my opinion, if you go with a hardline interpretation of the "very good", you should stay away from technology as well, as if it was good, god would have created this as well in the beginning.

Third: what about new illnesses? Do you blame god for them? That's, if I understand that correctly, the only way to interprete that.

 There are a lot of things an omnipotent god wouldn't do. For example it wouldn't fuck up the designing process and for example give us and many other mammals a blind spot by putting the retinas inside out. Or give humans wisdom teeth which never were much use to us (though quite handy to apes) and just cause a lot of unecessary trouble.

I think an omnipotent god is more likely to invent evolution than to make massive cockups in the designing process .

Aren't humans born with an empty yolk sac? Why would god give us this?

If it was a person's interpretation of the events that was recorded, that would destroy the theology of many Bible-believing Christians ("The Bible can't be wrong because it's inspired by God").  What I'm saying is, that view is impossible to hold for such Christians (not that the view itself is impossible).

As for it being blind submission, I'll say that anything I conjecture about reality is as equally blind (unproven), whether it be evolution or the Bible (if you feel like torturing yourself, you can wade through this thread to find a defense of what I've said).  Our faculties are useless without a starting knowledge.