Replies

" As you can see, it requires no such thing that I reject evidence. My attitude is very simple, I have confidence that the future will reveal more and more that will continue to demonstrate that God is correct.

I do not reject; I hold it in abeyance until the explanation arrives."

That's rejection. The explanation HAS arrived; parts of the Bible are not consistent with the physical evidence.

" Didn't some geneticist recently postulate "Eve" as the mother of humanity?"

No.

" The bottom line: (1) The Bible is right; (2) The bible is wrong."

Or 3) Parts of the Bible are right, and parts of it are wrong.

" If Adam is a "myth," then what does that say about Christianty?"

It has some 'splainin to do.

"And what does it say about evolution's real attitude toward Christianity."

That depends on which interpretation of Christianity you are talking about.

" On the one hand....myth. On the other hand...factual knowledge.

It says that evolution is actually atheistic."

It says no such thing. Again, you make the logical fallacy that if evolution says something that disagrees with Christianity, that that means it's atheistic. Christianity is not the only theistic religion. By your logic, anybody who didn't believe in your version of Christianity was an atheist because they didn't accept YOUR God. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to reinvent the meanings of words. The fact is evolution says NOTHING for or against the possible existence of a God. It's no different that any other science.

[" The bottom line: (1) The Bible is right; (2) The bible is wrong."]

Or 3) Parts of the Bible are right, and parts of it are wrong.

Or even more likely:

4) xzins and others are misreading parts of the Bible in a way which is wrong.

And personally, I prefer to learn directly from God's *actual* work (the world itself, and the evidence it provides) than from misunderstandings about the "unshakable word of God" from someone who keeps getting the easy stuff wrong.

Some folks need to get a clue from past mistakes of this same sort:

"The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned [by Biblical literalists] on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations." -- Galileo Galilei

Pop quiz: Who was right -- Galileo, learning from observation and evidence, or the Pope and his entire Church, relying on their reading of the text of the Bible?

Does the Sun actually revolve around the fixed Earth, as the Church was convinced the Bible clearly said?

"And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. [...] I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, April 12, 1615 letter to Foscarini concerning Galileo's "heresy".

And:

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.
-- Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo (June 22, 1633)

If the Vatican itself get get Scripture so freaking wrong when they read it, I have even less confidence in the textual interpretations of amateurs. And I'll take the considered opinion of 10,000 Christian clergy over xzins's impression of whether evolution is compatible with scripture.