It’s not “troubled with evidence”, it’s right out in the open. Their fear is that abandoning a de novo Adam is an abandonment of inspiration.
I do. That’s precisely why they say things like this.
And I do think in the end, even if I could be wrong on reading that text, I’ve got to have my reading of the text correct my understanding of the science.
But if you go back to the text, and you come to your conclusion as far as you can say, “Before God I’m trying my best to read this as I think what the Scripture says.” Right now, it says to me, you know, there is an Adam and Eve, and everyone came from Adam and Eve, and they were a special creation , and so even though I don’t have an answer to my scientist friends, that is where I stand.
They can’t accept science if it conflicts with what they think the text says, because to do so would infringe on their understanding of how the Bible communicates inerrantly. The statement “I’ve got to have my reading of the text correct my understanding of the science” is one which Galileo would have recognized. This is not a case of “Evidence first, interpretation of the text second”.