# Is evolutionary science in conflict with Adam and Eve?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532>\
**Category:** Peaceful Science\
**Tags:** Adam, Theology\
**Created:** [April 11, 2021, 4:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532 "2021-04-11T16:26:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 6:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/21 "2021-04-12T06:01:05Z")

</div>

No Daniel.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> This is very simple …

Yes, the statement I initially quoted is _simply_ fallacious.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> … and I’m baffled how you can’t see it.

I’m afraid that this does not surprise me. It is one of the reasons I try to avoid conversing with you, as it makes such conversations both unproductive and _very frustrating_.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> As a statistician, I’m assuming that you’re familiar with the concept of proof by contradiction.

I am familiar with it both as a mathematician, and as a student of Formal Logic. I am afraid however that your following exposition makes me doubt that you fully grasp the concept.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> Assume that someone holds the following presuppositions to be true:
> 
> 1. Scripture is inerrant (i.e. what Scripture teaches is necessarily true).
> 2. Scripture teaches a historical Adam and Eve.
> 
> from which it follows
> 
> 1. Adam and Eve were historical figures (from 1, 2).

I have already stated this to be a logically valid argument.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> Then any other argument (e.g. from science, philosophy, or theology) that results in the negation of 3) will result in a contradiction in one’s belief system. Surely it is not an informal logical fallacy to desire that one’s belief system be logically consistent. To retain consistency in one’s belief, we have to give up one of the assumptions of the belief system and/or the argument. Some people might prefer to give up the premises of the argument in question rather than 1) or 2), because they regard the latter as epistemologically very certain. That’s all we mean.

Unfortunately this _does not_ establish the validity of “any other argument (e.g. from science, philosophy, or theology) that results in the [_affirmation_] of 3)” – which was the matter under dispute.

**You can have logically invalid arguments even for demonstrably true conclusions.**

For example, it is demonstrably true that water is wet (for given temperatures and pressures). But the statement that “water is wet because it is Tuesday” is logically invalid (a _non sequitor_ fallacy).

Addendum: on further thought, I don’t think that Daniel’s argument is a [proof by contradiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction) at all.

A proof by contradiction is an argument of the form:

1. Assume that the proposition you are wanting to prove is false.

2. Show that _this assumption_ leads to a(n internal) contradiction (i.e. it leads to both a statement and that statement’s negation).

3. Such contradictions cannot occur, so the original proposition cannot be false.

Given that, as far as I can see, Daniel has not demonstrated that assuming any given proposition is false leads to an internal contradiction (being in contradiction to his beliefs doesn’t count), he has not made an argument of this form.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 6:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/22 "2021-04-12T06:09:17Z")

</div>

> [@naclhv](#):
>
> 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.

The problems are:

1. The statement under contention was phrased as a matter of _necessity_ not _probability_.

2. In order to make a probabilistic Bayesian argument, you first need to (non-arbitrarily) establish the prior probabilities: i.e. the probabilities that the stated theological consequences must be true. This would likely be fairly intractable, as well as yielding premises that are no less under dispute than Biblical Inerrancy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 6:58am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/23 "2021-04-12T06:58:02Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> > [@swamidass](#):
> >
> > That isn’t a fallacy if one believes for independent reasons that Scripture is a valid way of knowing things.
> 
> No Joshua, I’m afraid I have to emphatically disagree with you.

Let’s put it this way.

Genetic data from our genomes tells a lot of information, valid information, about the past. But it doesn’t tell us everything.

For example, I recall that I had a few slices of pizza for dinner today. I do not know this from DNA, but from another valid way of knowing something. What way? Well, my personal experience of eating that pizza. Perhaps you doubt my personal experience, or my report of it, but that doesn’t change the fact that I really did have pizza for dinner.

And of course, I can’t derive this fact about the past from an analysis of DNA either. That doesn’t trouble me in any way, because I do not expect to produce DNA evidence of this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 7:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/24 "2021-04-12T07:02:45Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> > [@thoughtful](#):
> >
> > but I clicked on some linked footnotes and they seem to all go to Zotero, an file share/editing program. So something is not working right @naclhv @swamidass
> 
> Yup. I need to fix that.

Should be fixed now. Let me know if I missed any.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 7:13am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/25 "2021-04-12T07:13:59Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Let’s put it this way.

Joshua, you can put it as many ways as you like, but it does not address, and therefore _cannot_ alter, the validity of my central point:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> The existence of a logically-valid argument for conclusion _does not as a matter of logic_ validate a logically fallacious argument for that conclusion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 7:40am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/26 "2021-04-12T07:40:55Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> Unfortunately this _does not_ establish the validity of “any other argument (e.g. from science, philosophy, or theology) that results in the [_affirmation_] of 3)” – which was the matter under dispute.

I’m not sure I understand you. Here, we’re not presenting a new, independent argument that proves 3), i.e. Adam existed. Rather, we’re speaking about people who already assume 3) from independent grounds. We’re not trying to give such a person more assurance in 3) by providing a new argument proving it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 7:51am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/27 "2021-04-12T07:51:41Z")

</div>

> [@dga471](#):
>
> I’m not sure I understand you.

That is _woefully_ clear.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> Here, we’re not presenting a new, independent argument that proves 3), i.e. Adam existed. Rather, we’re speaking about people who already assume 3) from independent grounds. We’re not trying to give such a person more assurance in 3) by providing a new argument proving it.

Irrelevant.

1. “George is an adult because he has blue eyes” is a fallacious argument.

2. “George is an adult because he is 25 years old” is a valid argument (assuming that whatever local definition of “adult” kicks in somewhere below 25, as is the case in most places).

3. Neither the validity of (2), nor it being an established fact that “George is an adult” alters the fact that (1) is a fallacious argument.

_Similarly_, the statement I originally quoted is a fallacious argument. The fact that you can make _other_, more logically-valid, arguments for its conclusion _does not and cannot_ change this fact.

Also, as an aside, the fact that it is a fallacious argument does not prove its conclusion to be false (it simply fails to prove it to be true).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 7:57am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/28 "2021-04-12T07:57:16Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> “George is an adult because he has blue eyes” is a fallacious argument.

I don’t disagree with this. I’m just trying to tell you that we’re not trying to make such an argument in the article. It seems that you’ve misunderstood the intent behind the words you quoted originally.

Here’s perhaps a better analogy: we are trying to ascertain whether George is an adult or not (assuming anyone over 18 is one). An acquaintance says that he is in fact only 17. However, his passport and birth certificate both say that he is 19. It is possible the passport and birth certificate are fake or mistaken. But many people think this is very unlikely on independent grounds (e.g. examination of the documents, the likelihood of obtaining fraudulent documents in the country, etc.). Thus it is more likely that the acquaintance’s observation was simply mistaken and George is in fact an adult.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 9:03am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/31 "2021-04-12T09:03:33Z")

</div>

> [@dga471](#):
>
> I’m just trying to tell you that we’re not trying to make such an argument in the article.

Daniel, you can “try” all you want. But until you can articulate a logical argument why the following statement is not an ‘Appeal to Consequences’ fallacy (which is **NOT** the same as arguing that _its conclusion_ is supportable by some other argument, or is accepted, or is true, etc), your attempts will be necessarily unavailing.

> In addition, other theological concerns may make a historical Adam and Eve necessary, such as maintaining the uniqueness of human beings as made in the image of God, the unity of all humans, a historical Fall from original sinlessness, and the doctrine of original sin.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> Here’s perhaps a better analogy:

No Daniel it is an _awful_ analogy.

The problem being that for it to be analagous we are **NOT**" trying to ascertain whether George is an adult or not", we are trying to ascertain whether _a specific argument_ for George being an adult is _logically valid_.

These are _two very different questions_.

And, as I have stated repeatedly and without contradiction, the fact that an argument’s conclusion can be _independently_ ascertained does not make a fallacious argument logically valid.

@dga471

This interaction has proven as unproductive as I had feared. I am therefore going to press the reset button, and take things back to my original statement:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> > In addition, other theological concerns may make a historical Adam and Eve necessary, such as maintaining the uniqueness of human beings as made in the image of God, the unity of all humans, a historical Fall from original sinlessness, and the doctrine of original sin.
> 
> This would appear to be an [Appeal to Consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences) fallacy.

1. What is your understanding of what is a fallacy?

2. What is your understanding of what is an Appeal to Consequences?

3. What are your reasons for considering that the statement quoted above is not an Appeal to Consequences?

As I have stated before, neither the truth of “a historical Adam and Eve” nor the existence of logically valid arguments for the truth of this conclusion, have any bearing on these questions. Therefore invocation of these matters will be rejected out of hand.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 12:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/32 "2021-04-12T12:55:52Z")

</div>

Maybe @swamidass or @naclhv can respond or explain in a way that is more helpful in this situation? Am I missing something?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 1:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/33 "2021-04-12T13:26:28Z")

</div>

> [@naclhv](#):
>
> Everything is evidence; to be slightly more technical in Bayesian terms, any E is evidence for H if P(H) != P(H|E).

Those aren’t the same thing. Not everything is evidence, because not all E affect the conditional probability of every H. Is the probability that the earth is round different from the probability that the earth is round given that carbon has six protons?

Your charming credence for astrology is, I hope, insincere, I hope. Is the probability that you will meet a tall, dark stranger affected by your horoscope saying that you will meet a tall, dark stranger? Incidentally, astrology is, for historical reasons, currently off by many degrees on the positions of the planets in the night sky.

Are the Ramayana and the Elder Edda also evidence regarding Adam and Eve? Are Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons evidence? Where do we draw the line, if in fact there even is a line?

> [@naclhv](#):
>
> you’re absolutely right that there’s huge gaps

It’s not just that there are gaps. There’s also a discrepancy in the order and nature of events and in the description of the structure of the world. But I see you interpret Genesis 1 as teaching a very simple message, that God created everything, and the details of the text are not to be taken literally. But in that case, why bother talking about gaps?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 1:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/34 "2021-04-12T13:56:47Z")

</div>

I have turned on the Reply Timer until moderation issues can be sorted out.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mark10.45](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/mark10.45/32/8930_2.png) [@Mark10.45](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mark10.45)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 4:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/35 "2021-04-12T16:07:18Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> But in that case, why bother talking about gaps?

I agree here…the response regarding gaps was to me. My comment about gaps was not that the gaps need to be filled by the opposite school of thought, science fills theology gaps and the converse…my comment was that time is the consistent issue that creates the gaps in the first place…understanding that time is not literal and in fact not even relative to God removes the gaps and science is free to define life as we understand it. I don’t think we need to fill the gaps, scripture stands on truth not fact. Science stands on fact, not truth. They are mutually exclusive.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 5:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/36 "2021-04-12T17:17:33Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> Joshua, you can put it as many ways as you like, but it does not address, and therefore _cannot_ alter, the validity of my central point:
> 
> > [@Tim](#):
> >
> > The existence of a logically-valid argument for conclusion _does not as a matter of logic_ validate a logically fallacious argument for that conclusion.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> > [@Tim](#):
> >
> > “George is an adult because he has blue eyes” is a fallacious argument.
> 
> I don’t disagree with this. I’m just trying to tell you that we’re not trying to make such an argument in the article. It seems that you’ve misunderstood the intent behind the words you quoted originally.

No one is disputing that point. It seems to be irrelevant. I have not seen anyone arguing that a logically-valid argument for a conclusion validates a logically fallacious argument for that conclusion.

You’ve repeatedly referred to this:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> But until you can articulate a logical argument why the following statement is not an ‘Appeal to Consequences’ fallacy (which is **NOT** the same as arguing that _its conclusion_ is supportable by some other argument, or is accepted, or is true, etc), your attempts will be necessarily unavailing.
> 
> > In addition, other theological concerns may make a historical Adam and Eve necessary, such as maintaining the uniqueness of human beings as made in the image of God, the unity of all humans, a historical Fall from original sinlessness, and the doctrine of original sin.

Let’s start with what the argument from consequences is.

> **Appeal to consequences** , also known as _ **argumentum ad consequentiam** _ ([Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) for “argument to the consequence”), is an [argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument) that concludes a [hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the [premise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise) leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences#cite_note-1) This is based on an [appeal to emotion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) and is a type of [informal fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy), since the desirability of a premise’s consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective [points of view](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(cognitive)).
> 
> [Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)

Or nicely stated:

> If P, then Q will occur.  
> Q is desirable.  
> Therefore, P is true.

> If P, then Q will occur.  
> Q is undesirable.  
> Therefore, P is false.

That is not the form of reasoning here. Rather, we are saying:

> Some people reasoned:
> 
> > We know P  
> > It was thought that if P, then not Q  
> > Therefore not Q
> 
> At the same time, others reasoned:
> 
> > We know Q  
> > It was thought that if P, then not Q  
> > Therefore not P
> 
> But we found that that the second premise was wrong. So, now…
> 
> > We know P  
> > P does not tell us about Q  
> > Maybe Q

From the point of view of many Christians, P is Adam & Eve and Q is evolution. I do not see any “argument from consequences” here, except perhaps a desire to avoid the undesirable consequence of direct logical contradiction.

The sentence you quoted saying “necessary” just means it is necessary for some Christians because they believe to know Adam and Eve are real from theology. Perhaps you just want clearer wording on that sentence?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 5:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/37 "2021-04-12T17:32:10Z")

</div>

I was taking P to be “Adam and Eve are historical”, and Q to be the “other theological concerns”, i.e. that human beings are unique and made in the image of God, that humans are a unity, that the historical Fall occurred, and that Original Sin is a correct doctrine.

> If P, then Q will occur.  
> Q is desirable.  
> Therefore, P is true.

It can also be articulated in the negative, taking ~ to be the negation operator:

> If ~P, then ~Q will occur.  
> ~Q is undesirable.  
> Therefore, ~P is false.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![thoughtful](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/thoughtful/32/9230_2.png) [@thoughtful](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/thoughtful)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 6:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/38 "2021-04-12T18:00:14Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> I don’t think there’s anyone claiming that science is allegorical.

Just because something is an allegory does not say whether it’s a valid source of truth or not a way of knowing. Sometimes literary devices are the best ways of knowing. Jesus used parables often to illustrate deeper truths.

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Should be fixed now. Let me know if I missed any.

I didn’t check all the linked words, but I just had a picky point - because the numbers in brackets are in green like the linked words, I expected them to be linked to the references below, and then the numbers in the references to be linked to an article. Otherwise I’d prefer them to be black. Just a style choice opinion, if you care or intend to write another article using the same style.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 6:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/39 "2021-04-12T18:10:54Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> I was taking P to be “Adam and Eve are historical”, and Q to be the “other theological concerns”, i.e. that human beings are unique and made in the image of God, that humans are a unity, that the historical Fall occurred, and that Original Sin is a correct doctrine.
> 
> > If P, then Q will occur.  
> > Q is desirable.  
> > Therefore, P is true.
> 
> It can also be articulated in the negative, taking ~ to be the negation operator:
> 
> > If ~P, then ~Q will occur.  
> > ~Q is undesirable.  
> > Therefore, ~P is false.

I don’t think that is what we meant at all. Rather, it is something more like…

> Theology seems to indicate P.  
> This is one reason some people think P is true.

I don’t think “desirability” of consequences really enters this at all.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/40 "2021-04-12T18:21:00Z")

</div>

> [@thoughtful](#):
>
> Jesus used parables often to illustrate deeper truths.

The author(s) of Genesis 1 and 2 used parables to illustrate deeper truths, too. Those parables are contradictory when taken literally.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 6:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/41 "2021-04-12T18:26:27Z")

</div>

They are not necessarily contradictory when taken literally.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2021, 6:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532/42 "2021-04-12T18:42:49Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> From the point of view of many Christians, … Q is evolution.

I am confused as to how Q can be “evolution” in this, as the statement I quoted, and suggested was an Appeal to Consequences, _made no mention of evolution._

(This was meant to be an addendum to my previous comment – but the ‘Reply Timer’ won’t allow for this. I would note with some displeasure that this timer does not seem to also apply to you – it makes the playing field less than even.)

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> I don’t think that is what we meant at all. Rather, it is something more like…
> 
> > Theology seems to indicate P.  
> > This is one reason some people think P is true.
> 
> I don’t think “desirability” of consequences really enters this at all.

If so, then it was very poorly worded.

Also, as the Adam and Eve story would appear to be the _basis_ of much of this theology (hence my viewing the theology as a _consequence_ of P), the claim that “Theology seems to indicate P” seems more than a little circular.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-evolutionary-science-in-conflict-with-adam-and-eve/13532.md?page=3)