It’s a simplistic view of evidence to classify the world into things that are “really evidence” and “not evidence”. Everything is evidence; to be slightly more technical in Bayesian terms, any E is evidence for H if P(H) != P(H|E).
This means that I do not simply reject some ways of knowing, like astrology. Of course, that doesn’t mean that I find astrology convincing. Rather, I have weighed the evidence for it and have found it wanting. But I don’t simply ignore it. It does do a good job of, say, telling me what the night sky might have looked like when I was born, and the fact that some people believe it does count for it, although it doesn’t count for enough to convince me.
You’ll note that the same can be applied to Scripture. You may find it unconvincing, in whole or in part, or for certain purposes or not for others. None of that changes the fact that it’s evidence, and that it speaks on its subject matter. You’ll also note that we explicitly include this kind of view in the article itself, in discussing the position that Adam and Eve were not historical persons at all.
At any rate, the initial “appeal to consequences” issue is a completely moot point, anyway. To @Tim 's argument, nobody is saying that we want to avoid these theological consequences as a simple matter of personal taste; we want to avoid them because they’re likely to be false. Framed this way, this is merely a probabilistic version of a proof by contradiction, which is easily understood in Bayesian terms. The “appeal to consequences” as a fallacy falls apart pretty quickly in this frame.
(@dga471, I see that you replied after I started typing - but I’m glad to see that our thoughts are in alignment!)
@Mark10.45 , you’re absolutely right that there’s huge gaps - as there must be, in any finite text discussing creation! I think I’m perfectly okay with such gaps. Going with my “totality of evidence” line of thought, I’m perfectly willing to let science fill in the gaps in the Bible, and the Bible fill in the gaps in science. And what I hope the article demonstrates is that there are many, many ways to do that!
Not that we should simply leave it like that, of course. I’m glad that you’re willing to state some specifics, beyond just leaving it at “many ways” to fill the gaps. I, too, have a much more specific interpretation of the Genesis creation story, beyond just leaving it at “many ways” to harmonize the Bible and science. But the focus of this article was to serve as some introduction to that vast space of possibilities.