Airtight Argument?

[Dimmesdale]

I think I might have found the Airtight Argument disproving Christianity (for those who believe in evolution).

Here it is.

We evolved from lower life forms. Hence, there was no Adam and Eve and thus no Original Sin. Therefore, Christianity is false.

Is it airtight after all? That is the question I'd like to put up for debate. To me it seems conclusive, IF one believes in evolution, which in my opinion every reasonable person should....

[Dimmesdale]

Is this statement based on actual study of genetics and evolution -- or is it said without actual study of the field?

It is amazing how many people KNOW about evolution without actually studying the field (which is not an easy subject of study). Perhaps they 'learn' all they 'know' about evolution by watching television, listening to sermons, and viewing religion-promoting websites.

Yes, that there must have been a bottleneck of at least several thousand hominids is something factual as far as I can tell, from the sources I have looked at. No, I am not making this up.

[marco]

If Original Sin is not true, than traditional Christianity is not entirely true.

Basically Jesus required people to respect God and love their neighbours. All ye know on Earth, as Keats said of truth and beauty, and all ye need to know.

A Jesuit with whom I had a discussion when I was a mere 16 explained that Eden and Adam were forms of poetry. That made more rhyme and reason sense than a silly man covering up his genitalia from an even sillier God.

Original sin is a topic for a later chapter.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 7 by Zzyzx]

It is amazing how many people KNOW about evolution without actually studying the field

A very good point Z!

I would say the same thing about those who KNOW that Jesus didn't come back to life without actually studying the field of history and applying it to the evidence.

At any rate the OP assumes all Christians hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is far from true.

[marco]

[Replying to post 7 by Zzyzx]


I would say the same thing about those who KNOW that Jesus didn't come back to life without actually studying the field of history and applying it to the evidence.

But if one corrects one's ignorance and studies the theory of evolution, one returns informed. If we study the history of the time of Christ we are no wiser about the resurrection. History is remarkably silent about it. When we study Egyptology we are filled with admiration for the ancient Egyptians, perhaps, but we need not endorse their superstitions.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1 by 7homas]

I've never met or even heard of a Christian who believes both in evolution and in Adam and Eve being directly created by God.

Most just think the story is metaphorical.

The closest I know of is the belief that Adam and Eve were the first "humans" to evolve and thus were only created indirectly by God. If that's the only difference, then the original sin part of the story could still be literal.

[Justin108]

I think I might have found the Airtight Argument disproving Christianity (for those who believe in evolution).

Here it is.

We evolved from lower life forms. Hence, there was no Adam and Eve and thus no Original Sin. Therefore, Christianity is false.

Is it airtight after all? That is the question I'd like to put up for debate. To me it seems conclusive, IF one believes in evolution, which in my opinion every reasonable person should....

While I do not believe in Christianity, I would have to point out that this argument is not even remotely airtight.

1. Not everyone believes in evolution and saying "every reasonable person should" is not much of an argument
2. Christians who believe in evolution would explain the Adam and Eve dilemma away with "but it was a metaphor" or something to that effect.

[alexxcJRO]

While I do not believe in Christianity, I would have to point out that this argument is not even remotely airtight.

1. Not everyone believes in evolution and saying "every reasonable person should" is not much of an argument
2. Christians who believe in evolution would explain the Adam and Eve dilemma away with "but it was a metaphor" or something to that effect.

The problem is that the Christian cop out: �but it was a metaphor� when they comprehend that the literal interpretation of the Genesis goes in contradiction with science: evolution, cosmology, geology, genetics, biology and so one; is a non-sequitur.

We cannot infer from the fact that because the literal interpretation of the Genesis goes in contradiction with science, therefore the people that wrote it meant it to be a metaphor.
Future events don’t change the past. People that wrote Genesis might have wrote it in a literal sense.

Usually Christians who believes Genesis to be a metaphor do not explain what the metaphor is about and how it relates with the rest of the Scriptures because this vagueness gives them ample room for maneuver.

[1213]

... IF one believes in evolution, which in my opinion every reasonable person should....

I would like to know, why do you believe that humans have evolved from �lower� life forms?

[Dimmesdale]

I suppose I should reframe the discussion and ask "is a literal Adam (and Eve) necessary for Christian theology?"

For me, saying that the Fall could be a "metaphor" is something of a cop out (as Alex points out). This is because it does nothing to actually EXPLAIN the notion of Original Sin. Who sinned, and when? How did this occur and under what circumstances?

[Dimmesdale]

I would like to know, why do you believe that humans have evolved from �lower� life forms?

Because of the mountains of evidence which support the thesis. Molecular biology, the fossil record, direct observation, etc.