[N]ow some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account....Are these really the stakes? If evolution is true, Christianity makes no sense? If you don't believe that, at least you can appreciate what a painful position those who do are in. I strongly doubt that the 4 out of 10 Americans who told pollsters they believe in the Genesis account of creation also think that "the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin." Doesn't Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection make more sense if you think of yourself as the sinner in need of forgiveness?
To many evangelicals, this is heresy.
"From my viewpoint, a historical Adam and Eve is absolutely central to the truth claims of the Christian faith," says Fazale Rana, vice president of Reasons To Believe, an evangelical think tank that questions evolution. Rana, who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Ohio University, readily admits that small details of Scripture could be wrong.
"But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you've got a problem," Rana says.
Rana and others believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve for many reasons. One is that the Genesis account makes man unique, created in the image of God — not a descendant of lower primates. Second, it tells a story of how evil came into the world, and it's not a story in which God introduced evil through the process of evolution, but one in which Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit.
Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, says that rebellious choice infected all of humankind.
"When Adam sinned, he sinned for us," Mohler says. "And it's that very sinfulness that sets up our understanding of our need for a savior.
Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin.
"Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament," Mohler says.
August 9, 2011
"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve."
NPR reports (respectfully!), noting first that Gallup and Pew polls show that 4 out of 10 Americans believe in the literal truth of the account of the origin of human beings that appears in Genesis. There's no link to the specific polls so we can see the questions asked, but I find it hard to believe that so many people belief in the literal story of Adam made out of dust and Eve fashioned from a rib and so on. (Even staying strictly within the text, the first few pages of Genesis seem to have 2 different accounts of the creation of man and woman.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
219 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 219 of 219You'd think it would make me more humble.
My word verification on the last post was "blessed." Wow.
On this one it's "nopla."
sonicfrog said...
Enough with the copper.
Not so fast sonicfrog. I never said that a cupric compound was the same thing as copper metal! Read again!
I said that a cupric salt is a species of copper. Do I need to put "copper" in quotes? It's a copper salt for crying out load. "Copper" is both a noun and and adjective. You're arguing over the generic meaning of the term "copper" insisting that it is only a noun meaning the metal.
PS: way to completely avoid your losing argument about the valence electrons.
Oh, and since you are all about links, hows about you tell me whether these Cu(II) compounds are molecules or not?: link.
PPS: You're the one who consistently makes silly little semantic arguments around here--not me.
I always felt Adam and Eve was a metaphor, by the way, because if humanity started with one man and one woman, then by definition there had to be a lot of incest.
(I know, I have a dirty mind).
Hey... Now THERE'S something we both agree on!!!! :-)
@sonicfrog:
To summarize:
-You incorrectly insisted that metallic copper has electron valence shells like atoms do instead of a delocalized band structure characteristic of conductive metals.
-You incorrectly asserted that Cu(II) salts are not molecules, willfully trying to obfuscate, by calling them ores.
It's all there in the thread.
Not so fast sonicfrog. I never said that a cupric compound was the same thing as copper metal! Read again!
Copper IS a metal, period. When it is bonded to something else, it is a compound, ore, mix or solution containing copper. It is not copper!
-You incorrectly asserted that Cu(II) salts are not molecules, willfully trying to obfuscate, by calling them ores.
My God Man! Where did I call Cu(II) salts an ore????? An ore refers to a rock mineral... which Cu(II) salt is clearly not!
And on the link you provided... Note that the wiki editors never let those compounds bare the name "molecule".!
@sonicfrog: OK Turkey, you bought yourself a real Cyprus dispute.
@sonicfrog: I take back the Turkey part.
You should definitely be the Greeks!
Well, being the guy who started be(inadvertently) the copper sub-thread, the whole reason behind the "arrangement of its atoms" rather than molecules or electrons was because I liked the sound of it better. Kinda surprised it got nitpicked like it did initially. Bet that guy's a lot of fun at parties.
Nonetheless, the discussion on it's been interesting. Fun to see people who know their stuff debate intricacies.
As an atheist I find it easier to believe that women are all the descendents of one man's rib than to believe that there are people who voted for Obama. The latter takes a level of gullibility on the part of my fellow man that is best left unexamined. The rib thing is easy to swallow in comparison.
Given Obama's abject failure at everything he has ever tried in his entire life (other than self-promotion) it is safe to say that those who still support him are just cult members of the worst and most destructive sort.
Ann - You're in for a bit of luck. God has started a blog (I'll be interested if he communicates with you directly). Anyway he starts with Genesis: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2011/08/08/110808sh_shouts_simms.
Anyway, you know psychiatry and Freud. He said 'Art is regression in the service of the ego.' Set religion=art. Totem and Taboo kind of sets up Adam and Eve for you especially if you figure momma was perforce younger, more nubile back then. Anyway original sin is a proof of Roman legal logic; when you get... but I digress.
The New Yorker
Chickenlittle re. Sonicfrog
"-You incorrectly insisted that metallic copper has electron valence shells like atoms do instead of a delocalized band structure characteristic of conductive metals."
Metallic copper bonds are weakly covalent and are often described in terms of their valence electron character to explain the reasons for their physical properties. When describing something in generic terms most chemists prefer to emphasize things like valence shells, ions, etc, instead of going into specifics regarding delocalized electrons (since most electrons in any molecule are in fact delocalized to some extent).
“-You incorrectly asserted that Cu(II) salts are not molecules, willfully trying to obfuscate, by calling them ores.”
Copper salts, like all salts, are ionic compounds with greater ionic character and weak covalent character. Strictly speaking in chemistry they are not molecular compounds. On the other hand, in vernacular speech “molecules” can be used to refer to the smallest particles of a substance.
SaintCroix
-“Under that argument, homosexuality is like Down’s syndrome, a genetic anomaly.”
Genetic variation occurs either through a recombination of genes or through mutation. Neither of which is an anomaly. Mutations occur all the time, the process of transcription is not perfect, there are dozens of mutations during conception, and many which accumulate during one’s lifetime. Most are not harmful. A true genetic anomaly exists only when a trait is normally absent from a species.
-“If homosexuality is mutation, doesn’t the mutating species have to start reproducing?”
The genes which may confer a predisposition to homosexuality would not be carried exclusively by homosexuals. They would be carried by all members, heterosexuals as well.
There was an urban myth that blonds would die out because being blond is a recessive trait. However there are a number of genes which confer the blond hair trait. Someone with dominant black hair alleles can still be recessive for blond hair, marry a brown haired person with recessive blond hair alleles, and produce a blond haired child.
For most traits, there is no single determinative gene, but rather a collection of genes which interact with each other and are expressed in various ways, determined by a myriad of factors such as the mother’s health, environment in utero, exposure to hormones, external environmental stress, etc. For many traits, just having some genes may simply produce a predisposition, but not an actual expression of that trait.
-“And the problem, of course, is that when homosexuals reproduce, they are doing exactly the thing that defines heterosexuality--reproduction.”
Some would argue that sexuality is better explained as a continuum. Your description fails to take into account bisexuals, who would have no qualms about either reproduction or intimate same sex relationships.
Thanks John. Maybe I'm being too persnickety, but one of my geology professors would really come down hard on us if we made those errors of classification, and I guess it's rubbed off on me.
1) I am pretty sure that the Catholic church still holds to a literal Adam and Eve and fall. I seem to recall that JPII's pronouncement on evolution also noted that there was a first couple with a soul. The doctrine of Original Sin and denunciation of Pelagianism haven't been revoked afaik.
2) B. B. Warfield, Princeton Seminary Pres in the late nineteenth century, author of the book on inerrancy, and contributor to "the fundamentals" (he put the fun in fundamentalism), was open to Darwinism.
3) YEC made headway into conservative protestantism mostly in the mid 20th century via restorationist and adventist movements. Ron Numbers is the go to source on this.
4) Meredith Kline, a recently deceased seminary prof at Westminster (CA) and member of the denomination founded by Machen as a result of the fund/mod split advocated the literary framework hypothesis for understanding the creation story. HIs work is highly respected by the evangelical scientific society the ASA.
5) The failure to understand the nuances of the strains of conservative protestantism is certainly understandable for those without a stake in it, but it is disappointing to see so many baseless assertions made about these movements. The historian, George Marsden, wrote a nice book on understanding evangelicalism and fundamentalism that may help those who think the difference is biblical literalism.
6) Political involvement by conservative protestants has been incredibly controversial amongst ourselves. In reformed circles, there are those influenced by Kuyper who believe the church should reform culture (these guys get lots of press). Then there are those who, following Hodge (amongst others) think that the church should completely stay our of civil affairs - Darryl Hart is an effective advocate of this stance, and his book on secularism is certainly worth a read.
kiruwa,
You're talking about chiasmus, and it's a very structure in both Old and New Testaments.
Fr. Martin Fox,
"A lot of nonsense about Galileo, but ... "
You were expecting something different???
Oops, make that "a very common structure..."
I hope the literalists never go away completely. They are so fun to point at and chuckle. It's like a car crash; you just can't avert your eyes.
Post a Comment