That is a great question, there is kind of a slippery slope and I am not an expert in explaining it. I'll try a little, before I go and get one of my books and research it. The plot follow that if the Creation story is false, then there was no original sin, if no original sin then no need for a redeemer, hence Jesus Christ would have been for naught, or so the humanist argument would go.
Did that help, at all?
That is a great question, there is kind of a slippery slope and I am not an expert in explaining it. I'll try a little, before I go and get one of my books and research it. The plot follow that if the Creation story is false, then there was no original sin, if no original sin then no need for a redeemer, hence Jesus Christ would have been for naught, or so the humanist argument would go. Did that help, at all? No need to be an expert.
Where Jesus Christ is accepted as necessary spiritual Redeemer---which I fully subscribe to---it could be said that there must be something for Him to redeem, i.e. a less-than-holy state of human existence.
However, can't such a state exist, and thus validate the need for Jesus Christ as Redeemer, without the Genesis story of Creation in particular necessarily being the accurate depiction of the origin of the less-than-holy state of human existence?