I appologize, first and foremost, if I cover something already covered. I read the first and last three pages, but being that time is relavent to me and any changes in time do not grant any more of it to me, I had to cut my reading short.
I believe that Genesis can be explained, and can coincide with most of current science. The first thing you have to understand is this (sorry all you high-science minded non-religious individuals, but its a discussion on religion, so we have to start there):
God is perfect, man is fallible. So the interpretations of one or even a group of religious people can very easily be incorrect.
Second: Theology is a science (Check out the Pope's speech in Germany (you know, the controversial one) at www.vatican.va
As such, when we create a hypothesis (in this case, understanding biblical text) that fails the test, we have to go back and re-examine.
It may not need to be said, but I am a believer. I also believe that there is room for science and reason along side belief in a creator diety.
In this case, we need to address two things. First, in Genesis 1, there is a repeated theme of acts of God, followed by "And there was evening, and there was morning - the ___ day."
Important to note is that in the original Hebrew, the word pronounced "yom" is used for day. Of most interest relating to this subject, the use of "yom" in Genesis 1 is unique in the bible. For example, Gensis 1:5 reads "yom ehad" and Genesis 1:8 reads "yom seni." Elsewhere in the bible, where you find the hebrew word "yom" either it or the numerical value associated with it (or in most cases, both) are prefixed, making the wording different. For example, in many places, "the first day" is denoted in hebrew as "hayyom harison" and "the second day" is "hayyom hasseni."
I believe, and there are many others who follow this belief, that the uniqueness of the use of the word "yom" in Genesis suggests that it should be interpreted differently than elsewhere in the book. One other I've read even suggested replacing the translation to "day" with "time."
Secondly, there are only three creative acts in Genesis, and I've noticed many people talking about God creating the Sun and Moon, this is not readily evident in Genesis. The three creative acts of God are: Heaven & Earth, Animal Life, and Mankind.
As such, this would mean Genesis 1 could be read (roughly) as:
God created Heaven and earth* and seperated light from darkness, thereby defining day and night. This was the first age/era/time.
God seperated water of heaven from water of earth* and called the seperation "sky".** This was the second age/era/time.
God draws land from the sea and allows it to produce plant life.. This was the third age/era/tme.
God allows the sun, moon, and stars to be individually visible, and to mark the passage of time.*** This was the fourth age/era/time.
God creates aquatic and aerial life. This was the fifth age/era/time.****
God allows creatures of the land to form.****
God creates man in his own image and likeness. This was the sixth age/era/time.*****
God rests. This is the seventh age/era/time.
*Also an important note is the use of the translation, "earth" which comes from the Hebrew word pronounced "erhets" which can be anything from a small locality to the entire planet, to all of existence. Taking "erhets" in Genesis 1:1 to mean, all of existence, simply means that God instigated the "big bang."
** This could be seen as the forming of the Earth, and or other planets.
*** There is no creative act in Genesis 1:14-19, merely allowing the sources of light to be visible. By this interpretation, the light that is "allowed to appear" in 1:3-5 could also be the Sun, suggesting that the Sun came before the Earth, but was seen as dispersed light within a vapor until Genesis 1:14.
**** Note again that this interpretation of "yom" allows for evolution among animal life. Also note that in Genesis 1:24-25 there is no implicit act of creation with the land dwelling creatures as there is with the aquatic and aerial creatures, leaving room for the possibility that creatures of the land could have evolved out of the sea. If I recall correctly, current scientific theory suggest something of the like.
***** This is where the point of contention comes in between Christianity and the Theory of Evolution. Genesis explicitly spells out that man was created, not evolved. I personally believe this is why there has been no evolutionary "missing link" found, and there won't be. Mankind's existence is an act of God. Note also, that the divine creation of mankind, does not prohibit mankind from experiencing evolution also.
Science and religion can exist in conjunction, and both can be true. Throughout the bible, God is portrayed and a structured and orderly entity. Thus, it makes sense that there would be scientific laws that govern existence. These do not rule out actual miracles, or acts of God, such as the creation of mankind. Another example, as Hawking put it (paraphrased), our current understanding of physics works mathematically all the way to (something like) one millionth of one millionth of one millionth of a second after the "big bang." I believe Hawking has even suggested that this supports the idea of a creator entity, that physics breaks down at the moment of creation (or course, I also believe he leaves open the possibility for error in scientific theory).