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?"
I was thinking about this earlier comment you made:
"Theologically, all that matters is that the end product is a rational being with free will capable of knowing and loving his Creator (or rejecting him). Why do you find that the process of shaping man matters?"
I don't think man was shaped. I think he was created. And I think he was created first, from direct materials from the earth.
I think Eve was created directly out of a man.
I think these things are directly impacted by the presentation of what T.O.E states: that woman was not originally sourced from a man. T.o.E fundmentally affects the sequence of how we got here. So, if that is accepted, then all other aspects of the Bible are reduced to myth, not just 'symbols and allegories'.
And that is how 'sin' as an idea is no longer a revealed truth, but just part of a particular myth.
But all that said, I found your selection, theologically, of 'all that matters' very odd. You coupled the word rational with the concept of free will - and you 'reasoned' that 'theologically', that was 'all that mattered'. I don't know quite how to describe why I know this outlook is flawed ... but I'm pretty sure it has major flaw.
For example, Free will - it is just amazing how much time the Calvinists and Arminians argue over this one point. When I was your standard rational materialist, btw, the free will stuff was obvious. I made decisions, consequences followed, wa la, proof that free will was 'real' was always there ... I didn't bother to think about it. It was like gravity.
Now, 4 years after the big change, I'm beginning to have very grave doubts about my ability to defend the central theme of 'free will'. Calvinists reading this would say 'duh', but I've not been able to fully leap into that camp, either.
Let me ask you a question ... do you know how to make God feel loved? (and I ask your patience, for all this does connect quite thoroughly to evolution - for in the end, evolution - sex - God/Christ - sex are intracately linked).