YECs, TEs, AEs and stuff

[Dust and Ashes]

I'm not a scientist and what little scientific knowledge I have is very limited but I do like to observe things and my A.S. allows me to see patterns and gives me a wierd kind of objectivity. Something occurred to me while reading some of the threads here and some other articles regarding ID, Creationism, TE, etc.

YECs are frequently accused of driving scientists away from Christianity because they reject a good bit of mainstream science. It seems that many Christians are driven away from an appreciation of science (ToE in particular) because of the Atheistic Evolutionists who claim that God is not necessary and present evolution as an alternative to theism.

I'm not necessarily talking about scientists, but your average atheist tends to see evolution as a way to explain how life got here without a Creator. Now, I'm pretty much a TE so I don't have a problem with science but for someone to state that "evolution shows that God didn't do it" is no different than a YEC denying evolution because they can't reconcile that with a literal reading of Genesis.

The TEs here do a great job defending evolution as science and demonstrating how that in no way detracts from God's greatness. What I wonder is how can we better present the facts without letting the atheistic baggage hang on and drive Christians away? How many Christians go off to college with YEC beliefs and have their faith destroyed by atheists waving facts around and claiming they prove something they don't prove?

I'm sorry if this makes little sense. It's been a long day and I think I'm coming down with something but I just got to thinking about it after I posted in the "why do many Christians reject evolution" thread and wanted to see what you all think about it. Thanks.

Forgive me.

 

[Critias]

It does make sense. Sadly, I am sure there are people who lose their faith because of science challenging their beliefs of YEC. I do think we are putting the blame in the wrong place.

Faith being lost in Jesus Christ, would start with their relationship with Jesus Christ. I don't think it is reasonable to say ToE is the reason people lose faith. I think it can be a factor, but not the reason. I believe it all starts with our relationship with Jesus Christ. And this really points to an interesting problem that we just don't focus on. People are not being taught enough about Jesus and encouraging the relationship with Him. Instead, we focus on origins or on if Adam has a belly button or not. We stop engaging people and sharing about Jesus and begin to argue and debate about something we will never agree on.

Don't get me wrong, I think this debate of CvE is an important one, but when one is faltering in their faith we need to stop with origins and share more about Jesus Christ.

Our faith, our salvation is in Jesus Christ. It is He who gives this to us, not the earth. When one is struggling with their faith, origins is not the answer, Jesus is.

I pray you feel better.

 

[Calminian]

Hi FS.

YECs are frequently accused of driving scientists away from Christianity because they reject a good bit of mainstream science. It seems that many Christians are driven away from an appreciation of science (ToE in particular) because of the Atheistic Evolutionists who claim that God is not necessary and present evolution as an alternative to theism.

Sounds like you’re the victim of propaganda. Science has always thrived in christian cultures. Many argue science was born out of the christian worldview of God creating an ordered world. Science isn’t the issue in this debate. The issue is naturalism vs. supernaturalism, something outside the realm of scientific investigation. It’s all about starting assumptions.

I'm not necessarily talking about scientists, but your average atheist tends to see evolution as a way to explain how life got here without a Creator.

Close but a little imprecise. Science looks for natural explanations (period). It doesn’t nor can’t look for supernatural ones. When one insists on strictly using science to investigate the origin of the universe he is limiting himself to naturalistic theories. It really doesn’t matter the worldview of the particular scientist. Any scientist, even a christian one can make this mistake.

Now, I'm pretty much a TE so I don't have a problem with science but for someone to state that "evolution shows that God didn't do it" is no different than a YEC denying evolution because they can't reconcile that with a literal reading of Genesis.

Evolution assumes it happened naturally though natural processes. The Bible says it happened supernaturally. Science cannot disprove a miracle (though so many scientists try).

The TEs here do a great job defending evolution as science and demonstrating how that in no way detracts from God's greatness. What I wonder is how can we better present the facts without letting the atheistic baggage hang on and drive Christians away? How many Christians go off to college with YEC beliefs and have their faith destroyed by atheists waving facts around and claiming they prove something they don't prove?

This is an issue that’s important to me also. Many christians don’t understand that miracles (additions to natural processes) are outside the realm of scientific verification and falsification. When Jesus created the wine at the wedding party, the expert (to whom the servants brought the wine) had no idea is was created miraculously that same day. Surely he believed it was older than it was and naturally made. That's because he assumed it was natural and a natural explanation would have fit the evidence just fine.

I'm sorry if this makes little sense. It's been a long day and I think I'm coming down with something but I just got to thinking about it after I posted in the "why do many Christians reject evolution" thread and wanted to see what you all think about it. Thanks.

Hope you feel better. For me the issue is simple. The Bible says creation was a miracle. Evolution says it was natural. The debate transcends science. Hope that helps.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Close but a little imprecise. Science looks for natural explanations (period). It doesn’t nor can’t look for supernatural ones. When one insists on strictly using science to investigate the origin of the universe he is limiting himself to naturalistic theories. It really doesn’t matter the worldview of the particular scientist. Any scientist, even a christian one can make this mistake.

I'm not talking about the science of evolution or the scientific method at all, but rather the propaganda that many atheists use to convince people that theism and evolution are mutually exclusive. I have personally heard numerous atheists make this claim and this is what many Christians think when someone says evolution.

 

[stumpjumper]

I'm not talking about the science of evolution or the scientific method at all, but rather the propaganda that many atheists use to convince people that theism and evolution are mutually exclusive. I have personally heard numerous atheists make this claim and this is what many Christians think when someone says evolution.

I understand your dilemma. In fact, I have had a formal debate on the topic at another site. This is the thing; there are people like Richard Dawkins out there who embed scientific research into metaphysical naturalism and there are people like Ken Hamm who say that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. I have a funny idea that Ken Hamm and Richard Dawkins will spend eterinity together at opposite ends of a debate table

Yes, many atheists are committed to evolution, the Problem of evil, and many other atheistic arguments. Myself, I think theistic evolution makes the most coherent theology especially when considering natural and moral evil and God's apparent hiddeness.

Unfortunately, this won't go away any time soon as long as groups like Answers in Genesis are making their own museums and publically calling all scientists atheists. Richard Dawkins doesn't help but he's still a good scientist even if he's a bit of a twit.

 

[Critias]

I understand your dilemma. In fact, I have had a formal debate on the topic at another site. This is the thing; there are people like Richard Dawkins out there who embed scientific research into metaphysical naturalism and there are people like Ken Hamm who say that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. I have a funny idea that Ken Hamm and Richard Dawkins will spend eterinity together at opposite ends of a debate table

Yes, many atheists are committed to evolution, the Problem of evil, and many other atheistic arguments. Myself, I think theistic evolution makes the most coherent theology especially when considering natural and moral evil and God's apparent hiddeness.

Unfortunately, this won't go away any time soon as long as groups like Answers in Genesis are making their own museums and publically calling all scientists atheists. Richard Dawkins doesn't help but he's still a good scientist even if he's a bit of a twit.

It is hard for me to accept your claim that theistic evolution makes theological sense when viewing the Bible. It would be nice to see an Ancieant Hebrew linguistical study to prove your assertion that Genesis 1-2 is a myth that God didn't work within history to create a real world.

Do you honestly think that if AiG and ICR went away, there wouldn't be a debate?

Most YECs on this board are fine with evolution being taught and talked about. YECs would like an equal chance of presenting their theory as well. This leading to the inclusion of God and Jesus Christ. No offense, but fruits are seen when TEs say they don't want this to happen. And when you do have places like AiG and ICR who do spread the Gospel message, you want them to be gone. That is also telling of the fruits of TEs.

Basically, you want science that excludes any talk of God. Even when speaking that God used evolution. TEs support the atheistic view of evolution more than they realize for they want God out of science period. No mention of Him using evolution or anything else that He is the Creator within science. That is why the phrase 'theistic evolution' makes no sense, you want God out of science, but yet will say informally that God used evolution....yet don't want God to be talked about within science or the classroom when talking about science.

Not only are TEs against YEC, they are against God being including in whatever theory in science there is when in a teaching or formal situation.

Those are the fruits of TEs that I see and it is disheartening.

 

[Calminian]

I'm not talking about the science of evolution or the scientific method at all, but rather the propaganda that many atheists use to convince people that theism and evolution are mutually exclusive. I have personally heard numerous atheists make this claim and this is what many Christians think when someone says evolution.

Evolution doesn't not disprove theism and most atheists won't make this claim. I'm curious where you heard this. If I were merely a theist I wouldn't give evolution much thought. Theists represent a wide range of views and evolution can work with most of them.

What atheists do claim is that evolution is incompatible with the Genesis account. What can I say? I think they're absolutely right. Atheists can read for themselves the same account we do. Many christians seem to be concerned that a literal Genesis interpretation will drive away people in this modern scientific age. So they reinterpret Genesis to make it fit. But unfortunately most atheists just see right through it and feel even more justified for rejecting the Bible. Heck if christians don't even believe it why should they? Very sad.

The other day I was listening to one of my favorite talkshow hosts. He happens to be a theistic evolutionists. An atheist called and quite effectively cornered him on this issue. The host basically hung up on him and didn't respond with anything useful. It really bothered me. How many millions of listeners heard that?

You see the average joe can pick up Genesis and know it’s not meant to be taken as a metaphorical myth. Metaphorical genealogies?? Christians will fall for this because they so earnestly believe it’s an inspired book and want other to believe so. But unbelievers have no such agenda. They’re going to just read it and let it say what it says and then decide whether or not they believe it. They don’t care that some christians put a different spin on it. Anyone can spin a story.

 

[Calminian]

Unfortunately, this won't go away any time soon as long as groups like Answers in Genesis are ..... calling all scientists atheists.....

Any backup for this statement?

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Evolution doesn't not disprove theism and most atheists won't make this claim. I'm curious where you heard this. If I were merely a theist I wouldn't give evolution much thought. Theists represent a wide range of views and evolution can work with most of them.

Most atheists won't make that claim but some will. And when they are very vocal, it can really stick with you. I have heard several atheists say it either directly or imply it here on CF and numerous atheists on other message boards. You see, YECs aren't the only people with agendas. It is pretty important for some atheists that there is no God to Whom they are responsible.

What atheists do claim is that evolution is incompatible with the Genesis account. What can I say? I think they're absolutely right. Atheists can read for themselves the same account we do. Many christians seem to be concerned that a literal Genesis interpretation will drive away people in this modern scientific age. So they reinterpret Genesis to make it fit. But unfortunately most atheists just see right through it and feel even more justified for rejecting the Bible. Heck if christians don't even believe it why should they? Very sad.

And many Christians are driven away from science because many media sources and many individual atheists slant the issue to make it sound as if theism and evolution are mutually exclusive. Many atheists make the claim that evolution proves there is no need for God. I've read it numerous times. Atheists put their own spin on evolution.


Please note, I'm not saying that this is some great atheist conspiracy to discredit Christianity or anything like that. There are a lot of atheists who don't know much about science and make uninformed statements just as there are many Christians who don't know much about science and make uninformed statements.

Note: If it helps you to understand my posts better, you might read every instance of the word "theism" as "Christianity" as I am referring to the Christian God but leaving the possibility open for it to refer to any theist.

 

[notto]

Not only are TEs against YEC, they are against God being including in whatever theory in science there is when in a teaching or formal situation.

I'm a TE and I discuss science with my Sunday school class. I would consider that a teaching and formal situation. Guess what, I include God in that setting.

But, to actually do the science, we can't use God to explain the natural phenomena we see (or to explain what we can't explain). That is a necessity of the scientific method. So far it has worked quite well in giving us useful answers. To change it would not provide any new knowledge. Science can't study God. It is not part of the theories because by definition it can't be part of it.

If you don't understand why this is the case then I don't think that you really understand how science works and why it works. This has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists and theist scientists use the same methods to do their work. There is no atheistic science or theistic science. There is only science. To suggest that TE's somehow support the atheistic worldview but holding to and following the scientific method and discussing science within its proper context is silly. Is the theory of gravity atheistic? When we discuss it are we supporting the atheistic world view?

 

[stumpjumper]

Basically, you want science that excludes any talk of God. Even when speaking that God used evolution.

Those are the fruits of TEs that I see and it is disheartening.

I am finding there is some fundamental barrier in these discussions. If you mean that I am fine with a public High School science class not mentioning God, Allah, Odin, or any other supreme beings than fine. However, I keep up with scientists who do mention God. I have read many a good book by scientists like Kenneth Miller that reconcile our scientific understanding of the world with Christian Theism. The problem with using God to explain our natural world in a public high school is at least two fold. One: saying God did it is not an explanation. Science follows methodological naturalism. Two: How can you limit it to the God of Abraham in public schools?

Evolution is a scientific theory and fact. Because I accept that science is science and theology is theology you consider my fruit to be bad. Well whatever Critias.

Do you think we should appeal to God in Calculus and get rid of calculators?

 

[Dust and Ashes]

I'm a TE and I discuss science with my Sunday school class. I would consider that a teaching and formal situation. Guess what, I include God in that setting.

But, to actually do the science, we can't use God to explain the natural phenomena we see (or to explain what we can't explain). That is a necessity of the scientific method. So far it has worked quite well in giving us useful answers. To change it would not provide any new knowledge. Science can't study God. It is not part of the theories because by definition it can't be part of it.

If you don't understand why this is the case then I don't think that you really understand how science works and why it works. This has nothing to do with atheism. Atheists and theist scientists use the same methods to do their work. There is no atheistic science or theistic science. There is only science. To suggest that TE's somehow support the atheistic worldview but holding to and following the scientific method and discussing science within its proper context is silly. Is the theory of gravity atheistic? When we discuss it are we supporting the atheistic world view?

Exactly. There is a quote that using science to study God is like giving someone a measuring cup and telling them to measure the ocean. I wish I could remember the exact quote and who said it.

 

[Critias]

Well call me dumb or foolish, but creation is here to give glory to God and when you support excluding God from the creation then there is something wrong. No matter what venue you are in.

It seems many, maybe all, TEs here support removing God from the formal study of creation, hence deny God's right to receive glory for His work.

Whether in the middle/high school level, TEs support the removal of God denying Him His credit, His Glory for what He has done. So that man instead can be elevated.

The more I think about it, the more ToE has in common with the ancient myths. They were used to elevate the king of the time. ToE is used to elevate man.

How Christians think it is right that deny God's glory in any setting is sad. Jesus Christ said to tell all nations about what He has done. One thing Jesus did was create this world, us included. But, from a TE standpoint, we aren't to tell everyone anywhere about all Jesus has done. Instead, we can only do so in certain places.

Your support of deny God's rightful glory shows your fruits.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Well call me dumb or foolish, but creation is here to give glory to God and when you support excluding God from the creation then there is something wrong. No matter what venue you are in.

It seems many, maybe all, TEs here support removing God from the formal study of creation, hence deny God's right to receive glory for His work.

Whether in the middle/high school level, TEs support the removal of God denying Him His credit, His Glory for what He has done. So that man instead can be elevated.

The more I think about it, the more ToE has in common with the ancient myths. They were used to elevate the king of the time. ToE is used to elevate man.

How Christians think it is right that deny God's glory in any setting is sad. Jesus Christ said to tell all nations about what He has done. One thing Jesus did was create this world, us included. But, from a TE standpoint, we aren't to tell everyone anywhere about all Jesus has done. Instead, we can only do so in certain places.

Your support of deny God's rightful glory shows your fruits.

I don't know if any of that was directed at me because I certainly don't support excluding God from creation. Heck, He can't be excluded from it since He did it. Anything that is studied with regards to creation is the study of how He did it. My remark about the ocean/measuring cup was simply to show that science is incapable of studying God, Himself and was in no way meant to imply that He should be discredited with the creation of all things.

I try not to get caught up in all the TE/YEC debating because it just stirs up a lot of unChristian feelings on both sides just as I have apparently done with this thread.

With regards to my fruits, who are you to judge another man's servant? It is to my Master that I stand or fall and He is able to make me stand. I'm struggling to build a mission Church in my town, sharing the truth with people every time the opportunity presents itself and have a 5 hour round trip to Church every time we go but we go in spite of the distance or gas prices.

You should be careful when you start throwing around condemnation, you might get some on yourself.

 

[Calminian]

Most atheists won't make that claim but some will. And when they are very vocal, it can really stick with you. I have heard several atheists say it either directly or imply it here on CF and numerous atheists on other message boards.

These are in the minority. Most atheists could care less about whether some want to tack God to the beginning of the Big Bang. Once one accepts their naturalistic assumptions you're no longer a threat to them. Theistic evolutionists are really just theistic naturalists or deists, which, practically, are indistinguishable from atheism.

You see, YECs aren't the only people with agendas. It is pretty important for some atheists that there is no God to Whom they are responsible.

The defense of scripture is a pretty nobel agenda.

And many Christians are driven away from science because many media sources and many individual atheists slant the issue to make it sound as if theism and evolution are mutually exclusive.

I've not seen this. Liberals (even media liberals) are just as religious as conservative christians. Theism is totally okay with them. It's the Bible they have a problem with. In fact most evolutionists go out of their way to explain that evolution is compatible with theism. They just want us to reject the Bible or at least a literal reading of it.

Many atheists make the claim that evolution proves there is no need for God. I've read it numerous times. Atheists put their own spin on evolution.

Well actually they are right about that. If you believe we are here via natural causes then that's what you believe whether christian or not. If it was natural it wasn't supernatural. You may out of curtesy want to place God in there somewhere but it's not necessary. They have a point there.

Please note, I'm not saying that this is some great atheist conspiracy to discredit Christianity or anything like that. There are a lot of atheists who don't know much about science and make uninformed statements just as there are many Christians who don't know much about science and make uninformed statements.

But what's worse is christians that don't know much about Genesis and yet claim it's compatible with evolution.

Note: If it helps you to understand my posts better, you might read every instance of the word "theism" as "Christianity" as I am referring to the Christian God but leaving the possibility open for it to refer to any theist.

I figured as much. I think you'll have a real problem harmonizing christianity with evolution. Jesus believed in a supernatural creation of which man was created at the beginning.

But I hope you realize that science cannot give you any insight on whether the miracles of Genesis were true or not. So hopefully you're not rejecting or reinterpreting those accounts because of science.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

These are in the minority. Most atheists could care less about whether some want to tack God to the beginning of the Big Bang. Once one accepts their naturalistic assumptions you're no longer a threat to them. Theistic evolutionists are really just theistic naturalists or deists, which, practically, are indistinguishable from atheism.

I really get that "vibe" from a lot of TEs myself but there are just as many who are not deists. I even get the feeling that some TEs are more concerned with maintaining the personal respect of their atheist friends and collegues than ensuring that they are known as Christ's disciples by loving their YEC brothers and sisters the way they should. But that is only some TEs. I won't even say many and certainly not most since I don't know every TE. I can only base my opinions on the few that I know here and those I know personally.

It's my understanding that a lot of TEs (the ones I can relate to, anyway) believe that God created the universe in the beginning so that everything would specifically end up the way it has. Normally, I would scoff at the idea and say that no one would be capable of that level of foresight, planning and execution. I mean, heck, I can't even put the right amount of english on a cue ball to make a good shot but God? I think God is big enough to start it so that every single atom will do what He wants it to do whether He ever chooses to intervene or not.

But all of this is not a priority for me so I'm not going to get all wound up over it. Don't take offense if I just shrug and walk away. It's not that I don't care, it's just not high enough on my list for me to put a lot of effort into it. Besides, very little good ever seems to come out of these debates. How many times have I ignored someone who needed to be ministered to because I was dwelling on some ongoing debate on an internet forum? Peace.

Forgive me.

 

[Critias]

I don't know if any of that was directed at me because I certainly don't support excluding God from creation. Heck, He can't be excluded from it since He did it. Anything that is studied with regards to creation is the study of how He did it. My remark about the ocean/measuring cup was simply to show that science is incapable of studying God, Himself and was in no way meant to imply that He should be discredited with the creation of all things.

I wasn't responding to what you said, but more to what stumpjumper and notto said.

I try not to get caught up in all the TE/YEC debating because it just stirs up a lot of unChristian feelings on both sides just as I have apparently done with this thread.

If you have, I haven't viewed it as that nor anyone in here for that matter.

With regards to my fruits, who are you to judge another man's servant? It is to my Master that I stand or fall and He is able to make me stand. I'm struggling to build a mission Church in my town, sharing the truth with people every time the opportunity presents itself and have a 5 hour round trip to Church every time we go but we go in spite of the distance or gas prices.

I am not judging you or anyone here. I am judging what I see said. We cannot judge one anothers hearts, but we can judge each others actions or fruits.

I have do not know much of where you stand because you haven't posted much about it. Others here though have repeatedly insisted that God must be left out when talking about creation in a formal settings. By formal settings I mean science and public institutions.

Can you honestly say you think God should be removed in certain areas of life; that He shouldn't be talked about, He shouldn't be shared, He shouldn't receive Glory for what He has done? From your reaction here and your message, I don't think you would. But others here think God does not belong in science. I am not suggesting we study God with the scientific method, but rather giving God credit where it is due. Instead, science uplifts man and gives man the credit and glory.

Many TEs here share the belief that God shouldn't be given credit within formal settings. That He doesn't belong there. I sternly disagree because God deserves ALL Glory for what He has done and He did create this Universe whether by creationism or evolutionism.

The fruits I see are people who want God excluded, who support the exclusion of Him receiving Glory for His creation. Maybe I am the only who sees this and am foolish to state that I believe God receives all the Glory no matter what venue we are in.

You should be careful when you start throwing around condemnation, you might get some on yourself.

I was not condemning you or anyone. If I was, I would have judged your hearts. Instead I have judged the fruits that many show here.

I am trying to show what is happening, what is being supported. Yet, it seems everyone is oblivious to the fact that many Christians here support removing God from receiving His rightful Glory and instead shift that glory to man.

This isn't about your acceptance of ToE, it is about people not wanting God to be discussed in science, or in any public venue. How can we as Christians justify that when we are to spread the Gospel? Are we to say we can speak only in private of Jesus Christ not in public? How does God see this?

Do you honestly think God doesn't mind that we, as Christians, act embarrassed to give Him credit, to speak of His Name in public?

Jesus said, if you are ashamed of Me, I will be ashamed of you. This means that if we are ashamed of Him so that we want Him excluded, not talked about, then He will not tell His Father of us.

Doesn't that jolt you in the slightest?

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Do you honestly think God doesn't mind that we, as Christians, act embarrassed to give Him credit, to speak of His Name in public?

Jesus said, if you are ashamed of Me, I will be ashamed of you. This means that if we are ashamed of Him so that we want Him excluded, not talked about, then He will not tell His Father of us.

Doesn't that jolt you in the slightest?

I would have to say that I'm a TE when it comes to origins but I'm right with you on this. I won't refrain from giving God the credit for creating everything, regardless of how we may differ on how we believe He did that.

I haven't read these forums much so I can't comment on how widespread this is but I figure it's just like any other situation where Christians get around non-Christian peers whose respect they covet. It gives me a serious jolt to see that happening.

 

[stumpjumper]

Your support of deny God's rightful glory shows your fruits.

Critias

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of ANY theistic evolutionists position. In fact I could easily turn it around on you and say that you deny God's rightful fruit in gravity, relativity, or human reproduction. I support God's glory in everything I witness in our world.

Show me how someone who supports creation through evolution and long ages of the earth is any less Christian and shows God's fruits any less than a YEC!

It is certainly your implication that TE's would like to dismiss God's action in the world while reality shows different.

 

[Calminian]

I really get that "vibe" from a lot of TEs myself but there are just as many who are not deists. I even get the feeling that some TEs are more concerned with maintaining the personal respect of their atheist friends and collegues than ensuring that they are known as Christ's disciples by loving their YEC brothers and sisters the way they should. But that is only some TEs. I won't even say many and certainly not most since I don't know every TE. I can only base my opinions on the few that I know here and those I know personally.

I'm still trying to figure out why you're a TE. Sounds like something you really haven't thought through.

It's my understanding that a lot of TEs (the ones I can relate to, anyway) believe that God created the universe in the beginning so that everything would specifically end up the way it has. Normally, I would scoff at the idea and say that no one would be capable of that level of foresight, planning and execution. I mean, heck, I can't even put the right amount of english on a cue ball to make a good shot but God? I think God is big enough to start it so that every single atom will do what He wants it to do whether He ever chooses to intervene or not.

This issue isn't about God's ability but God's revelation. Creating a universe through evolution would be just a difficult as creating it in 6 days. The problem is the Bible says it was in six days, and few thousand years ago. Why not believe it? If we pick and choose which sections to believe we give license to those who want to do the same. Many so-called christians believe the resurrection to be a meaningful myth. How is your method of interpretation any better than theirs? How would you go about telling them their interpretation is wrong?

But all of this is not a priority for me so I'm not going to get all wound up over it. Don't take offense if I just shrug and walk away. It's not that I don't care, it's just not high enough on my list for me to put a lot of effort into it. Besides, very little good ever seems to come out of these debates. How many times have I ignored someone who needed to be ministered to because I was dwelling on some ongoing debate on an internet forum? Peace.

The creation account is the logical foundation of the gospel. Without the fall, redemption doesn't make sense. How do you explain to someone their need for redemption if you believe the story of the fall is a myth?