[FourtySeven]

The problem is that you have to do some pretty amazing spaghetti twists in regards to the doctrine of the fall and the atonement if you subscribe to Darwinism.

Who says, you?

[frgoff]

No, most of accepted scriptural exegis for about the last 2000 years.

Biblical interpretation is not ENTIRELY subjective. There are certain elements that have to be universally accepted as literal (Jesus Christ was real and the son of God) or you no longer have Christianity.

One of those, accepted by ALL Christian traditions for the past 2000 years is that sin entered the world through the fall of the man Adam and thus the restoration from sin required the sacrifice of Christ.

Christians who subscribe to Darwinism must turn their back on 2000 years of scholarly interpretation and declare that Adam is actually a metaphorical construct and never existed as a real individual, and that Paul is comparing a metaphorical construct, Adam with a real individual, Christ, and that a metaphorical construct to represent a prior condition that never existed (a sinless garden of eden with immortal occupants) requires the real sacrifice of an actual diety (Christ, the son of God) to eventually restore mankind to a metaphorical condition that never truly existed.

The contradictions require an impressive exercise in pretzel logic to overcome.