Well, I always begin my own thoughts with a reminder that I'm a scientist and not a theologian. And what theologians conclude or don't conclude, falls on them. Theologians used to think that the earth was the center of the universe, but that didn't stop Galileo, and what theologians say today, be them young earth or old earth etc.) I cannot take over my personal scientific observations. Though while I may trust my personal observations over what others might say, I am also limited in my understanding of scripture, and I'm comfortable with this fact.
And, as Christians, I think we will always be left with some uneasy or challenging conclusions to topics. If someone came to Christianity thinking that all questions relating to life and the universe would be perfectly resolved with a little bow on top, then they are probably in for a rude awakening. Christianity responds to some of the deepest questions and concerns that we have, but creation is far more complex than our Sunday school teachings.
With that said, here are some of my thoughts on Romans 5
I've heard some people refer to Adams death, potentially as a spiritual death, or purely spiritual. Just as God breathed life into Adam, but Adams physical form was made and existed prior to God breathing life into Him. Adam might die with respect to His connection with God in a spiritual manner.
Jesus came and died on the cross, and reversed the consequences of Adams sin, and yet, clearly physical death still exists in the world. Rather it's a spiritual eternity that Christ has given us.
Personally, I tend to also just throw in the caveat that Paul, the author of Romans, likely didn't know about prehistoric times. Paul wouldn't have known about those Burgess shale arthropods that hunted and ate trilobites (as evidenced by trilobites in their fossil stomachs), and so with his authorship, he just wouldn't have necessarily known enough about the past, to give distinct details that would have clarified on our dilemma.
Of course, this shouldn't be any surprise to us, but the latter in particular, can be a very offensive consideration to many Christians.
But maybe Paul did Believe that this death was spiritual.
Romans 6:11
"So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."
Dead not necessarily in a physical sense, But dead in respect to our relation to Christ.
But to continue on:
Did death occur before the Fall? - Common-questions
"Thomas Aquinas has some other thoughts on the concept of death as a product of sin. He says
" Further, all are equally descended from our first parents. Therefore if death were the punishment of our first parents' sin, it would follow that all men would suffer death in equal measure. But this is clearly untrue, since some die sooner, and some more painfully, than others. Therefore death is not the punishment of the first sin."
"But in dumb animals death is not a punishment of sin. Therefore neither is it so in men." -Thomas Aquinas
I think what Aquinas saying is that, some people might die peacefully in their sleep, while others might die an agonizing death. If both deaths were the product of one man's sin, why would they come in different forms and in different magnitudes?
And he examines the question of, if Adam sinned, then why would animals, that have no awareness of Adams sin, also die?
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The punishments of the first man's sin (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 164)
Back to biologos:
"Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.” - John Calvin
This ideas seems to suggest a possibility that Adam may have introduced a certain form of death, but not necessarily
All death.
Genesis 3:22
"Then the Lord God said, behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and
live forever."
A verse sometimes suggested to mean that man was mortal, yet depended on the tree of life for immortality. What would that mean for animals that didn't eat of this tree? Presumably that animals were never immortal.
Anyway, It seems like there are many different interpretations and ideas by theologians throughout history. Thankfully we have external means of investigating these questions (geology), that can cut through the variance of the human mind, to bring us closer to a rational conclusion.
Ken Hams ark museum presents the idea of Jesus walking among coconut eating t-rexs in the garden of Eden, but these ideas are truly impossible to justify when we look beneath the surface. Scripturally and scientifically.
And I think these young earth interpretations can be appealing because they are so simple. And they largely evade complicated questions by providing very simplistic solutions. Ark to small for animals? Well maybe the animals were all babies. No evidence for the global flood? Well maybe it all sprouted from the mid oceanic ridge. The young earth position offers very simplistic and surficial responses to very deep questions. Which I think makes it appealing to some who might not be willing to dig further into the topic.
Though in some ways, young earthers may be accurate. Perhaps authors of genesis really did believe that the entire planet was flooded or that Adam and Eve were real people made of dust and a rib bone. But, of course they also lives thousands of years ago before people learned things that we do now. There's a reason that the apostles didn't use cell phones or cameras or cars or planes to get around. The world didn't have the knowledge of science and technology that we do today. It would be like asking George Washington If you could describe the chemical makeup of the atmosphere of Saturn. Some things we just can't reasonably expect people in the past know.
