This has probably come up before, but I was not smart enough to find it.
I am pretty much a firm believer in Evolution. You couldn't convince me it didn't happen without effectively discrediting science altogether. So that brings me to a bit of a dilemma.
Because I absolutely believe in the fall, and I think it actually happened and is not just a metaphor (a metaphor for what exactly? what about everything else then? no... it has to have happened). I think it might actually be easier (hard though it would be) to discredit science altogether than convince me the fall did not happen.
So... the chronology... disturbs me. First of all, a human being is an organic unity as far as I am concerned, I am pretty suspicious of Cartesian dualism. So what exactly happened? Was there a moment before the creature that would evolve into man was not quite there, then he reaches a particular stage of development, God puts a soul in? Does that make sense to you? It seems kind of ...odd, to me and way too dualismy.
How else might it have happened?
But it doesn't worry me too much, what really worries me is that evolution is a process that is effectively reliant upon death. Evolution doesn't really work without it, because without natural selection to weed out some creatures the whole thing doesn't work. All mutations would survive. Also, the very concept of mutation, it is reminiscent of corruption, but isn't the Fall the source of corruption.
So it seems to me like evolution is impossible without the fall, because evolution relies upon corruption and death, it feeds on those things.
...so... the only way I can figure it might happen, is that the fall not only gave corruption to the future, but also to the past, that sin corrupted the world like ripples through time that went in both directions.
Which sounds a bit sci-fi lol but I don't know... it's all I can think of.
I guess it doesn't matter too much, but I wondered if there were other solutions to these issues other people had thought of.
The story of evolution is a very badly written fiction novel since Darwin couldn't even describe his main characters. So he couldn't
possibly know what they were capable of breeding.
So evolution is not only fiction, once you change Genesis 2:7 from; "For the Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" into; "For the Lord God formed the man from the wombs of some unknown animal" you have to change the
whole bible so that it becomes
totally unrecognizable for the following reasons::
1) It denies that God created man separately from the animals. So either evolutionists have to say that God was an animal since he created man in His image, or one can't believe that God created man in His image
2) One can't then know who the first man was or who his descendants were. Evolution thus, denies Adam and Eve, and thus all of their descendants including Jesus
3) It causes confusion over why man decays back into dust when he dies
4) It then has to throw out Romans 5:12-21 that Adam was the firstborn of the flesh, Jesus was the firstborn of the Spirit.
5) If the world is 4.5 billion years old, then each day of creation would have to have been at least a million years old which would have made Adam several million years old at the time of the fall.
And many, many more changes including the spiritual significance of Adam being the firstborn of the flesh and Christ being firstborn of the Spirit. So one cannot believe in evolution and the bible at the same time unless he changes the bible to make it say what his itching ears want to hear. In that case, we might as well throw out the bible and each person make up a bible and god of his imagination which would then be an imaginary god and not real.
Scientists are not infallible gods. They are fallible human beings who change their minds every generation. So one either believes God or he believes scientists. 1 Corinthians 3:16, "For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight." And few things prove that mroe than the story of evolution.
