I accept Adam and Eve as the first of a new subspecies of homo sapiens. I believe that there are sometimes small but important variations between the various subspecies that actually make a big difference to the 'image of God'. What is very clear from the literature is that this is not an area of science where certainty prevails. [/qipy/te]
The claims of the Original Sin and the Fall related to the story of Adam and Eve specifically represent a mythology that has no reference in reality of what we know of the history of humanity,
The teaching with regard to the nature of Adamic man is, to my understanding, without error. It speaks about the inclination of man to follow the lust of the flesh, seen initially in the temptation of Eve. The flesh becomes prominent only when the Spirit is ignored, and this leads a man into sinful practices. This is the story of the original sin, and highlights the need to know and follow the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me, that we often encounter members from the scientific community thinking that their methodology can be used to analyse the Bible. But the exegesis of scripture is not comparable to a scientific experiment. It is governed by a different set of principles, some of which are beyond the measures of science.
Our knowledge of science and archaeology can test the factual physical history claimed in the Bible.
I know that it is hard for some people to recognize that there are forms of evidence which do not fit the scientific model. But, the Bible [Hebrews 11:1] makes it clear that faith is a form of evidence. This is because God only reveals things to people who hold the truth by faith. Faith, in other words, pleases God.
The Bible cannot testify itself concerning what is 'objective or documentary evidence. You need outside sources of document the objectivity of the Bible by how objective is defined concerning what is evidence.
To hold faith in such high regard goes against scientific practice, but at the root of faith is a conviction that God lies behind creation and is, ultimately, in control of the destiny of this world and each individual soul within it.
One, such as I, can easily accept that God lies behind Creation and in control of this world and each individual within it without creating conflicts between faith and science. Science remains the objective standard concerning the physical facts and NOT in conflict with the witness of God's Creation.
Richard Dawkins, and similar thinkers, have a great dislike of faith because they understand it to be a rejection of reason. This is a childish misunderstanding of the Bible, and a broader review of Jewish and Christian literature will quickly make apparent that some of humanity's greatest minds have been preoccupied with understanding the nuances of the text.
Calling to question Richard Dawkins beliefs does not remotely help your case. Richard Dawkins' science is sound and good and I have no reason to have an issue with his science. He has a legitimate claim the believers claim their belief by faith is objective evidence and documentary evidence in opposition to science. I share this belief with Dawkins and I am a theist. Virtually all scientists are in agreement with Dawkins concerning science, but scientists have many diverse religious beliefs.
[quote[ The bottom line is that science deals with creation,