<<
"Christianity is - must be! - totally committed to the special creation as
described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its
full might against the theory of evolution. And here is why.
In Romans we read that 'sin entered the world through one man, and through
sin - death, and thus death has spread through the
whole human race because everyone has sinned.' (5:12)
...the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the
existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate.
Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall
into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what
purpose is there to Christianity? None.
Even a high school student knows enough about evolution to know that
nowhere in the evolutionary description of our origins
does there appear an Adam or an Eve or an Eden or a forbidden fruit.
Evolution means a development from one form to the
next to meet the ever-changing challenges from an ever-changing nature.
There is no fall from a previous state of sublime
perfection.
Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is reduced to a man
with a mission on a wrong planet!"
AND
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the
desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly
and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made
necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin,
and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take
away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the
redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then
Christianity is nothing."
G. Richard Bozarth, "The Meaning of Evolution", American Atheist, 20 Sept.
1979, p. 30
YEC's usually use logic like this to stop a debate on God and Evolution in
its tracks!! I really can't reconcile this statement with
my evolutionary beliefs and my Christian Faith?? I need help. I am still
searching for answers. >>
The writers of the NT having no awareness of modern archaeology and
anthropology had no reason not to take Gen 2 and 3, indeed 1-11 absolutely
literally. It is all the more striking, therefore, that Romans says, "sin
entered the world through one man" when according to the account in Genesis
sin entered the world through one woman. My point is that not even Paul is
following the account literally. And, if the account does not have to be
followed literally, where is the conflict?
No matter where or how the first human being came into existence, there has
to be a first person who was aware of the will of God and rejected it, that
is, sinned. Sin has to have entered the world somewhere sometime;and that is
the original sin. What difference do the details make now that sin is in the
world? The salvation of Christ is necessary on any account.
Paul S.