It’s hard to spin the creation of Adam from dust and Eve from his rib as anything else. What do you have?
27 posts were split to a new topic: Boris Badenoff: Adam and Eve and Astrotheology
Yeah, I can’t see the upside. The problem is that there really is no possibility of scientific “engagement.” The best fit between the myth and science is to frame the myth in terms which make it nonfalsifiable. That renders it utterly worthless to anyone who is at all curious about what’s actually true, and so what is the point? I think that scientific attempts to accommodate these things, unfortunately, tend to create the entirely false impression that there is some sort of support for the claim of a historical Adam and Eve, when all that is really being said is that science cannot demonstrate the non-occurrence of a one-off miracle long ago.
There is some argument for the use of these accommodative positions as a gateway drug for easing people off of fundamentalism. But while methadone is good for the things it’s good for, it’s still not, in itself, good for you.
A very good question, John.
One alternative exegesis of the second account of creation (Genesis 2-3) would regard it as a kind of parable. Phyllis Trible gets a lot of mileage out of this perspective.
Personally, I am still sorting through the exegetical question.
Let me clarify: it’s hard to spin the creation of Adam, etc., as anything else if you take it as an account of real events. If you suppose that Adam and Eve did not in fact exist, that’s another matter.
I heard Casey Luskin is an old earth creationist and IDer so I imagine he would advocate for a historical Adam and Eve circa 100 thousand years ago.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.