RTB vs Dick Fischer

As far as the origins of Man, both models are lacking.

First of all, IMO, the RTB model is wrong because it denies common descent. They claim that each species, especially Man, is specially created. I do not believe they have adequately explained all of the genetic evidence for common descent.

While preferable, I think that Dick Fischer's model has some serious theological problems that I have not seen him address satisfactorily. I am sure that he thinks he has, but I have not seen anything convincing, maybe I just missed it. But I have a problem with his model in how it deals with original sin. Namely, how can Adam bring death to all men? Why should a previously innocent human being in Australia, Europe, or Asia suddenly become guilty, as well as all of his descendants, because one human in mesopotamia gave into temptation, and screwed up his relationship with God? I think it was George Murphy that made a post about this, saying that this makes God the author of sin, and I think that is a valid criticism.

Glenn's model, doesnt fit, IMO, because biblically Adam clearly is a bronze age figure, and I think that Dick Fischer's model is superior overall in these terms. But, none of the models fit either the scientific evidence completely, or the biblical evidence.
Received on Fri Apr 14 20:07:47 2006