Scientific evidence doesn't rule out I.D. either...but that doesn't lessen the protest against it.
In short, if Adam was created as the first man, along w/ Eve, then sin has an entry point. But if the 'evidence' states that they both 'evolved' together and just 'appeared' then the how of how they got here is no more valid that the hopi creation story.
This means sin as a concept is associated w/ biblical myths and is not a bon fide concept. That is how evolution taken as is 'rules out' sin...(and by extension, rules out the reason'd'etre for the Reconciler)
That's because the ID people are claiming that ID is a scientific theory. If they simply asserted it as a theological point, there would be no controversy.
In short, if Adam was created as the first man, along w/ Eve, then sin has an entry point. But if the 'evidence' states that they both 'evolved' together and just 'appeared' then the how of how they got here is no more valid that the hopi creation story.
What's the "how" got to do with sin? It seems to me that as they are there, sin has an entry point, regardless of how they got there. What am I missing?
This means sin as a concept is associated w/ biblical myths and is not a bon fide concept.
Again I don't follow you. If the Bible uses symbolic and allegorical language to convey truth, why does that make the truth any less "bon fide?"