Is evolution inconsistent with Christian theology? -- Antares vs. drewjmore

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a short formal debate between Antares and drewjmore on the following resolution:

Resolved: Evolution is inconsistent with Christian theology.

Antares will argue for the affirmative position and drewjmore will oppose. The debate will have 3 rounds (with the final round being concurrent) and Antares will go first per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2563594&postcount=26
).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2570000#post2570000) is set up in the General Religious Discussions forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Good luck to both participants!

- NS, FD Moderator

[Antares]

IIDB Members,

I would like to begin by thanking drewjmore for agreeing to participate in this debate. I am certain that I will gain a valuable new perspective through his insights, contributions and criticisms. I would also like to thank Nightshade for taking the time to organize and moderate this ongoing discussion.

I appreciate it, gentlemen.

Introduction

Before I get into my actual arguments, I would like to clarify a particular aspect of the resolution that might otherwise create a misunderstanding if left unaddressed. What I am referring to is the somewhat ambiguous phrase "Christian theology," which can be interpretted broadly or specifically. As it pertains to this debate, it should be noted that my arguments are predicated on the following tenets: Jesus Christ (the supposed Son of God) was crucified as an act of atonement for the sins of mankind, and the details of His life and ministry are chronicled in the New Testament.

Now, there are several differences (some minor, some substantial) between various Christian denominations. However, all variations are based on the central tenet that Christ's sacrifice was necessary to reconcile humanity's relationship with God.

Having established the above, I will follow with specific claims in Genesis that should help solidify my position and strengthen several points to be made at the end of this post.

The Creation of Adam

The first book of the Bible, Genesis, identifies the original human as Adam, who was created in God's image. Since it is pertinent to my position in this debate that the Bible portrays Adam as a historical person (not as a figurative representation of humanity), I have provided two key verses to support my assertion:

Genesis 4-1: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Genesis 5-5: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

The two verses above clearly illustrate Adam as a human being by providing details about his life. In Genesis 4-1, Cain (the first of Adam's sons) is mentioned by name. In Genesis 5-5, the age at which Adam died (930) is specified.

Now, if biblical writers did not intend for Adam to be considered an actual person, why did they include the names of his children (not to mention having him as the patriarch of an extensive genealogy that spans every generation until the birth of Christ) and specify the age at which he died? It seems to me the only sensible explanation that can be derived from biblical details is to regard Adam as historical.

Original Sin

Now that I have established Adam as an historical figure (at least as the Bible supposes), I would like to elaborate on the nature of his creation, the consequences of his transgression, and the significance of his life.

According to Genesis 2:7, Adam was created as a living, pure soul. Because of that, he was in perfect harmony with God. Adam's innonence allowed him to experience the essence of God completely and without fault. Before Adam sinned, there was no death, suffering or guilt in the world. The original human condition possessed the same value and potential as our spirit, which is apparent in the following verses:

1 Corinthians 15:20-22 - "But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

The above verses clearly demonstrate that Adam's sin introduced death (physical death) into the world and severed Man's relationship with God. It is for this reason that Christ's sacrifice was necessary in order reconcile Man with God and restore all that was lost through sin.

Problems with Evolution

Now that I have provided a necessary summary to serve as a basis for my argument, I would like to point out a few key reasons why evolution is inconsistent with Christianity.

1. From an evolutionary standpoint, Man is not responsible for the death and suffering that exists in the world. Death is an inevitability of life that has existed since long before the first humans appeared. With that being true, why were we made mortal (and subject to the harshness of that condition) through no fault of our own? How is death justified without the presence of sin?

2. Without a literal Fall, there is no apparent reason for our seperation from Paradise. The Bible explains that Man was originally granted all that is to be attained through faith in Christ, but lost it through sin. However, this is not the case when evolution is considered.

3. If Genesis is not literally true, then it becomes unclear exactly how Adam acquired a soul and under what circumstances he transgressed against God. Was Adam a Neanderthal? Was the world condemned in a single or collective act of transgression? Did God decide on a whim to give a few smart animals (which is essentially what we are) a soul at some vague point in the past? Were we planned all along? If so, why the elaborate scheme consisting of eons of death and suffering that eventually led to our origin?

4. If Genesis is considered allegorical, then perhaps many other essential parts of the Bible are not literally true, such as the Exodus or maybe the Resurrection.

Conclusion

I have provided several solid reasons why evolution is inconsistent with Christianity and how it creates problems that cannot be explained in a rational way. Evolution raises too many questions regarding the nature of Man, the origin of sin, and purpose of Christ to be considered a sensible alternative to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

[drewjmore]

Greetings & Pleasantries to all,

The resolution of this debate undermines the theological foundations of the Christian faith; if true, evolution & science generally have disproven the fundamentals of a significant portion of the world's religions. When viewed in such terms however, even the mild skeptic must ask, "what's the catch?" I’ll now restate our resolution, with an eye to the points made in the opening statement preceding this post.

The affirmative position is that the theological purpose of the life & crucifixion of Jesus was atonement for the original sin of Adam & Eve. Therefore, if the Genesis account of Adam’s fall from grace is not literally, historically accurate in the same way as is the New Testament, then Christianity’s philosophical structure crumbles. Thus the scientific theory of Evolution, which disagrees with Genesis on numerous points of fact, is inconsistent with Christian theology in such a way that both cannot be true.
As it is the duty of the negative side, I will now dissect the affirmative argument.
…Jesus Christ…was crucified as an act of atonement for the sins of mankind…
While this tenet as stated is superficially correct within Christian theology, the proceeding argument confuses two concepts: ‘the sins of mankind’ and the church doctrine of ‘original sin.’ The Hebrews acknowledged that all people transgressed the Lord’s commands with some regularity, indeed they could hardly avoid doing so, and risked His wrath without periodically making ‘atonement’ to God through meaningful sacrifice. ‘First-fruits,’ (that is, the best stuff from your fields & orchards) must be given up to the temple, and often burned. If you keep livestock, the flesh and blood of the finest animals must be given up in offering. It is in this sense that early christians believed that through the sacrifice of Jesus, all of mankind’s sins are forgiven.

God the father has forgiven us, we need only believe this to attain the promises of heaven. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16, as we should all know, alludes to the aborted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham.

The Hebraic, and thus the early christian, practice of atonement is not payment of a hereditary debt to God incurred by Adam. It is a demonstration of the love of the faithful for their God. Augustine formulated the catholic doctrine of original sin, around the 4th century CE, as related to sexuality (specifically: concupiscence), based on the allegorical understanding that the 'tree of knowledge' has carnal implications. It is explicitly forgiven in baptism, and was never present in Christ by virtue of his virgin birth.

Thus the major flaw in the primary premise of the affirmative argument is exposed.
I will use the remainder of my verbal allotment in anticipation of the rebuttal.

The "creation" of Adam

Who wrote Genesis? The question is rhetorical of course, as any answer is purely speculative. Therefore the appeal made to the intent of the 'biblical writers' provides proof neither that Adam & Eve were literally people, nor that the writer thought that they were. In fact, the opposite is true. The poetic structure of the text strongly suggests allegorical intent, with Adam playing the role of Everyman. Further, the stories in Genesis regularly contradict themselves and are not internally consistent; this is not the work of authors who wish to be taken literally.

The affirmative argument does have intellectual parallels in late 19th century fundamentalist teaching regarding biblical literalism, which continues today. See:http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/chapter14/hague2.html

However, this cannot be construed as doctrinal within other denominations.

In our current debate context, the story of Adam & Eve conveys the lesson that all mortal humans have the tendency to perform acts that are contrary to God's will. Until late in th second milennium, no serious theologist believed in an historical person named Adam who is personally responsible for the inevitability of death and harsh earthly conditions.

“Original Sin� in the New Testament

The reference to 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 ,“…is understood [in catholic doctrine] in the sense that as the original Adam was the head of all mankind, the father of all according to the flesh, so also Jesus Christ was constituted chief and head of the spiritual family of the elect.�* Taken in context, the phrase, “…as in Adam all die…� refers to a spiritual death, or the ‘death of the soul’ in Augustinian terms, not corporeal mortality. (*from The Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm)

Problems with Evolution?

1. The claim that either the Genesis myth or science must be necessarily false cannot follow logically from the flawed premises above. Before christianity became an entrenched political system, “…it was held to be dangerous to confuse mythical and rational discourse.�** Unfortunately, the arguments presented by the affirmative side are based on literal interpretations of scripture, and thus miss the point of God's word entirely. (**- Armstrong, Karen, pg xvii, “The Battle for God� Random House, 2000.)

2. Paradise is an allegorical place which represents communion with the spirit of God. Which is to say that it was never considered to be an actual garden in modern Iraq. Archeology is also quite inconsistent with Genesis.

3. The origin of the soul is, at best, unclear-- whether Genesis is cited or not.

4. I agree 101% with this: “…many other essential parts of the Bible are not literally true, such as the Exodus or maybe the Resurrection.� This fact has no bearing on a discussion of ‘evolution versus theology.’
Thank you, for choosing this topic Antares,
I have learned a great deal in preparation for this discussion.
-djm

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Antares,

I'm afraid that your recent statement has been declined due to it significantly exceeding the word limit as agreed to from the parameters thread. Please re-submit another statement when you have the opportunity. You will have a grace period up to and including Aug. 9 to re-submit.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[Antares]

Originally posted by Antares:
"As it pertains to this debate, it should be noted that my arguments are predicated on the following tenets: Jesus Christ (the supposed Son of God) was crucified as an act of atonement for the sins of mankind, and the details of His life and ministry are chronicled in the New Testament."

Originally posted by drewjmore:
"While this tenet as stated is superficially correct within Christian theology, the proceeding argument confuses two concepts: ‘the sins of mankind’ and the church doctrine of ‘original sin.'" The "sins of mankind" is simply an encompassing phrase used to describe the resulting condition of humanity created by Adam's violation of God's mandate. While it is true that all men have sinned, there still must have been a point in which our ancestors possessed pure souls and were considered righteous in the presence of God and worthy of the fullest expression of His love and glory. Otherwise, it does not make sense that Man requires a Savior to restore a relationship with God that never existed in the first place.

Originally posted by drewjmore:
"God the father has forgiven us, we need only believe this to attain the promises of heaven."Therein lies one of the problems with evolution. Why were our ancestors not originally granted an earthly paradise similar to the common perception of Heaven? After all, sin did not exist in the world. There was no need for faith, forgiveness, salvation, repentence or anything else associated with our fallen state of being. Man was supposedly in the highest state of enlightenment prior to the Fall. Despite that, our ancestors apparently evolved in a hostile, dangerous world with no regard for the human condition. Why?

According to Genesis, Adam was placed in Eden, which was considered Heaven on Earth. However, Adam's sin resulted in his explusion from Eden and brought death into the world. This action made it necessary for a Savior to redeem Man and restore what was lost through Adam's sin. Within the context of the Bible, this interpretation makes far more sense.

Originally posted by drewjmore:
"Therefore the appeal made to the intent of the 'biblical writers' provides proof neither that Adam & Eve were literally people, nor that the writer thought that they were. In fact, the opposite is true. The poetic structure of the text strongly suggests allegorical intent, with Adam playing the role of Everyman."Paul mentions Adam several times in Romans. He even elaborates on the relationship between Adam and Christ, which is (as I have noted) a key element of my argument. I will provide a few verses for your consideration.

Romans 5:14 - Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Romans 5:17 - For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:19 - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

As you can see, Adam is clearly not a figurative representation of Man. Rather, he is described as an individual in several different verses and books.

Originally posted by drewjmore:
"Further, the stories in Genesis regularly contradict themselves and are not internally consistent; this is not the work of authors who wish to be taken literally"The four gospels contain several contradictions. Does that mean the authors did not intend for the life, death and resurrection of Christ to be take literally?

Originally posted by drewjmore:
"Until late in th second milennium, no serious theologist believed in an historical person named Adam who is personally responsible for the inevitability of death and harsh earthly conditions."I believe the opposite is more accurate. It was not until after Darwin that a significant number of Christians began questioning Genesis and the historicity of Adam.

Originally posted by Antares:
"1. From an evolutionary standpoint, Man is not responsible for the death and suffering that exists in the world... How is death justified without the presence of sin?"

Originally posted by drewjmore:
"1. The claim that either the Genesis myth or science must be necessarily false cannot follow logically from the flawed premises above." You did not answer my question. How is death justified without the presence of sin?

Originally posted by Antares:
"2. Without a literal Fall, there is no apparent reason for our seperation from Paradise."

Originally posted by drewjmore:
"2. Paradise is an allegorical place which represents communion with the spirit of God. Which is to say that it was never considered to be an actual garden in modern Iraq." Do you mind providing biblical evidence to support that statement?

Originally posted by Antares:
"3. If Genesis is not literally true, then it becomes unclear exactly how Adam acquired a soul and under what circumstances he transgressed against God."

Originally posted by drewjmore:
"3. The origin of the soul is, at best, unclear-- whether Genesis is cited or not." I believe it is rather clear that Adam acquired a soul at some point during his lifetime. It is only when you take away Adam that problems arise regarding the circumstances in which Man acquired a soul and became accountable for sin.

Originally posted by Antares:
"4. If Genesis is considered allegorical, then perhaps many other essential parts of the Bible are not literally true, such as the Exodus or maybe the Resurrection."

Originally posted by drewjmore:
"4. I agree 101% with this: '…many other essential parts of the Bible are not literally true, such as the Exodus or maybe the Resurrection.' This fact has no bearing on a discussion of ‘evolution versus theology." In my opinion, an allegorical interpretation of Genesis, the Exodus, or the Resurrection undermines the significance of Christianity, which makes my point quite relevant.

[drewjmore]

The "sins of mankind" is simply an encompassing phrase used to describe the resulting condition of humanity created by Adam's violation of God's mandate. Clearly, then, I was mistaken that your discussion of ‘Original Sin’ was a, “necessary summary to serve as a basis for [your] argument.� :rolleyes:

...there still must have been a point in which our ancestors...were considered righteous in the presence of God...Otherwise, it does not make sense that Man requires a Savior to restore a relationship with God...Even given that Genesis might be fictional, or even a lie, still the conclusion that a ‘relationship with God never existed,’ would not follow.

Also, God can do whatever He pleases to expel us from, or return us to, His grace. His reasons are His own. Man has never “required� a savior, despite your contrary stipulation. Man could never achieve salvation by himself, so God took the initiative. Romans 3:25, "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished."

…Man was supposedly in the highest state of enlightenment prior to the Fall…This assertion in based on a figurative interpretation of Genesis. What proceeds is the literal interpretation of Genesis. I also recommend reading the literal translation found here: ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:4-3:24;&version=15; )
"Adam� is created as a “living creature,� who did not know the difference between good & evil. Eve and Adam, in their innocence and each in turn, fell victim to the subtlety of the serpent. Neither could have knowingly chosen evil, as that knowledge was imparted later by the fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil.� Death was simply the effect of eating the fruit, as explained to both Adam & Eve before the eating was carried out, not a punishment for a ‘transgression.’ They were dumb & happy, not 'enlightened.'
Thus the references to ‘sin’ and ‘death’ made in Paul’s epistles (especially Romans 5:14-19, which you’ve cited) reflect the following allegorical interpretation of the Genesis creation: Mankind, with knowledge of good & evil, sometimes acts against God’s laws, which is known as ‘sin,’ the wages of which are ‘death.’

...Adam is clearly not a figurative representation of Man.Actually, your conclusion is not 'clearly' drawn from the passages you cite. Paul in no way implies that he believes that Adam was REAL in any of his writings. Quite the contrary, in Galatians 4:24 Paul states that, “These things may be taken figuratively," and proceeds to reinterpret the births of Isaac and Ishmael to make his theological point, thus demonstrating the general disregard for the literal facts of ‘sacred history’ among early Christians.

Does that mean the [gospel] authors did not intend...Christ to be [taken] literally? Each separate gospel tells an essentially linear story that suggests historiographical intent, with minimal internal discord. Considering the nature of transmission in the oral tradition which reigned before the gospels were actually written down, their considerable agreement is much more remarkable than their minor inconsistencies.

My original comment, however, refers to Genesis having been written with allegorical intent. The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees:
from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm
"To what extent [the opening] chapters [of Genesis] should be considered as strictly historical is a much disputed question...
...the question of the strict historical character of the narrative...becomes of relatively slight importance, especially when we recall that in history as conceived by the other biblical authors...the presentation and arrangement of facts -- and indeed their entire role -- is habitually made subordinate to the exigencies of a didactic preoccupation."

It was not until after Darwin that a significant number of Christians began questioning Genesis and the historicity of Adam.

Not the unwashed christian masses: Theologians. Augustine, Origen, Aquinas, etc. These philosophers and fathers of the Christian faith admitted to the truth in the word of God, but did so with the understanding that God’s word was not always to be literally interpreted; literal analyses of the OT often fail theologically, and thus they did not employ them.

You did not answer my question. How is death justified without the presence of sin?You asked many questions to which you are not demanding answers. I presumed that this question was rhetorical as well, since it is nonsensical and based upon several straw assumptions.
The first of these is that Genesis is literally, historically true.
The next is that God created Adam “without sin.�
We then suppose that Adam did in fact sin in spite of the latter assumption, and that therefore God created death as a punishment for Adam and his descendants.

Since I have demonstrated that all of these assumptions are false, answering your question is pointless. Neither will I respond to any other of the questions which were likewise posed. :p

djm:Paradise...was never considered to be an actual garden in modern Iraq.Joel 2:3 contrasts "the garden of Eden" with wilderness & desolation. The latter are abstract nouns which do not refer to specific physical places. The former is held up as an abstract reference to the perfection of paradise, and it is one of the very few references to a place called Eden beyond the Genesis creation myth.

Furthermore, as the location of Eden is specifically described, it stands to reason that people living in that region would have known that no such place exists on Earth. If you would contend that no such place exists ANYMORE because it was wiped out in the flood, read Revelation 2:7 where The 'Lamb who was slain' speaks of the continued existence of God's paradise, where ‘the tree of life’ still stands.

I now briefly submit the various christian creeds and statements of faith, especially the "Apostle's Creed," as evidence that the christianity does not found itself on any of the doctrines that the Affirmative debater has so far discussed.

Can we agree to double the word limit in our conclusions?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

The final round will consist of statements submitted concurrently from each participant.

[drewjmore]

Evolution is not inconsistent with Christian Theology. Let's not seek to prove a negative.
Is evolution CONSISTENT with Christian theology? This, at least, is an answerable question. For Roman Catholics the answer is yes, they have embraced modern science to the extent that it does not impinge upon morality. For sola scriptura protestants, the answer is more complex and varied, but in "The Science of God," Gerald Schroeder does an admirable job of providing a response in the positive. For better or worse, we have limited ourselves to 3000 total words in this debate, and that does not allow sufficient space to both prove the above, and disprove the contrary.

Thus is has fallen to my counterpart to prove that Evolution is INconsistent with Christian theology. In this capacity, the attempt has been made to demonstrate that Saint Paul of Tarsus clung to a literal interpretation of Genesis (and presumably all of Hebrew scripture), and that the assertion that Jesus Christ died in atonement for our sins rests entirely upon this literal view.

I'm prepared to demonstrate that an allegorical interpretation of Genesis (or however you wish to define it) leaves Christianity without a logical, coherent foundation.

In my way, I have pointed out that Protestants brought literalist interpretations into vogue, in the strict sense required by the affirmative argument, in only the late 19th century. The early reformed faiths, indeed Luther himself, held (essentially) that scientific progress was a gift from God. It would have seemed madness for them to even entertain the notion that science could disprove the worth of Christ's sacrifice.

I explained that Hebrews practice(d) blood sacrifice in apology to God, and it was in this sense that the Christ is understood to make our atonement. Hence the implication that "original sin" from Adam was in some way addressed in the crucifixion was broken. It should also be noted that the argument had to be re-formulated in the face of my opening rebuttal. It was not "original sin" that was essential to the link between Genesis and our redemption-- as I though was rather clear from the opening statement-- but the existence and origin of sin and its continuity through mankind.

The affirmative attempt to demonstrate that Paul actually held a literalist viewpoint was directly contradicted by words and implication in his letter to the Galatians. Thus fell another premise of the affirmative argument.

This debate has provided me with immense intellectual stimulation, I have not done theological research on this scale in a month of Sundays. I also thank Antares for expounding what was to me a unique angle in the discussion with biblical literalists, one I shall certainly use to help de-program several of my acquaintances when the opportunity arises. It is merely the assertion that all of Christian Theology fails in this resolution that had the ring of falsehood in my mind.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Antares has informed me that he will not be able to post his final statement within the time limit. The rules, however, permit a 3 day grace period, extending the deadline to the early morning of Aug. 20.

- NS, FD Moderator

[Antares]

IIDB Members,

Before I begin summarizing my points, I would like to briefly elaborate once again on the basic premise of Christianity and how it pertains to salvation. This is a concept that my opponent does not seem to fully understand and demonstrated such by continuously promoting ideas that diminish the importance of Christ's sacrifice and draw accountability away from Man. My opponent's view is far too arbitrary and relies on concepts that (while of use in some moral instances) are inconsistent with God's original purpose for Man and the resulting consequences of Adam's transgression.

Essentially, Christianity is based on the idea that Man (because of sin) is unable to attain salvation through merit and must trust in Christ's divinity in order to be saved. However, it is seldom recognized that the circumstances which first brought forth Man's need for salvation (which is basically the issue here) are no less important than Christ's work. Otherwise, Man does not deserve to suffer the consequences from which we are supposedly being saved, which would make the crucifixion pointless.

Having said that, I would like to include a couple of biblical verses I referenced earlier in this debate to support my contention. In my opinion, these verses are very clear, very direct and offer a consistent view of Man's fall and redemption.

Romans 5.19: "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."My opponent made a few attempts to allegorize Adam as a mere representation of Man, which (if true) would be fatal to my argument. However, the above verse, which my opponent did not address, clearly individualizes Adam by referring to him as one man. Romans 5:19 further reinforces Adam as an individual by equating him with Christ, who is (without question) considered one man.

1 Corinthians 15:20-22 - "But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."My opponent provided a vague, speculative answer to my assertion that Adam's sin brought death (physical death) into the world. His response failed to adequately explain the above verses. Much like Romans 5:19 reveals the nature of both Adam and Christ (each being described as one man), 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 demonstrates a connection between both individuals by linking Adam's physical death with Christ's physical resurrection.

After reading my opponent's second rebuttal, his response to my comment that nearly all Christians believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis prior to the 20th century struck me as a bit odd. He said, "Not the unwashed christian masses: Theologians. Augustine, Origen, Aquinas, etc. These philosophers and fathers of the Christian faith admitted to the truth in the word of God, but did so with the understanding that God’s word was not always to be literally interpreted; literal analyses of the OT often fail theologically, and thus they did not employ them."

The specific phrase I find peculiar is "literal analyses of the OT often fail theologically, and thus they did not employ them." The reason I disagree (at least in this instance) is because I do not believe Genesis fails theologically. Rather, I believe it fails scientifically. In my opinion, the primary reason why many Christians interpret Genesis figuratively is because a literal interpretation has been disproven by science. We know that evolution has taken place over the last few billion years, so a literal interpretation of Genesis (which includes special creation within a recent timeframe) must be false.

In my opinion, the motivation for a figurative interpretation is scientific, not theological. After all, how theologically sound is it for a supposedly loving, compassionate deity to create a world as brutal and dangerous as ours without an apparent reason? Not very. In fact, it's a rather poor explanation compared to the one I offered, which gives credit to God for creating an earthly paradise that was ruined by Man's transgression. That (along with the verses I have included in all three posts) is why I believe evolution is inconsistent with Christian theology. It places the blame on God (not Man) for the pain and suffering we endure. It also complicates the reason why we require a savior to spare us from circumstances that apparently were not of our making.

In conclusion, I would like to again thank drewjmore for his participation. Although I strongly disagree with him, I respect his opinion and intellect. I have gained a broader perspective of this particular issue through his contributions. I hope that he considers my own ideas to be similarly rewarding.

[StrictSeparationist]

This concludes the formal debate; I apologize for the lateness of the validation of Antares' final post. We thank both Antares and drewjmore for their participation.