“A plain reading of the Bible doesn’t allow for it.” You ask what is meant by a “plain reading.” The plain answer, as you’d have it, is that accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, even in their supposed contradiction, are expository rather than merely poetic. To the extent which words, phrases and passages are lifted literally obviously depends on the creationist, though clearly Young Earth Creationists make the least assumptions about idiom and flare on the theory that there is no literary attempt at dramatic mystery. People may disagree with the principle, but there you have it.
“Evolution makes it difficult to understand Adam, the Fall, and sin (and thus the work of Christ)”. You should admit YEC literalism does produce at least a far more straightfoward narrative than one complicated by trying to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2 figuratively with actual prehistory. But c’mon on. That’s a sideshow compared to the actual meat of the debate, which largely concerns whether YEC literalism is irreconcilable with worldly evidence, but whether holding such views is somehow harmful to individuals and society. I’d argue no in both cases, even as I’d argue for the far greater beauty of a Godless progression of accidents through deep time governed by little more than a few physical laws that emerged by chance.
“Micro-Evolution is fine, but Macro-Evolution is just an unproven, unscientific theory”. Predicting in what strata the last common ancestor of two species will appear based on calculating genetic divergence is precisely the sort thing that firms hypothesis into theory. However, this isn’t actually the argument. The fight is over the proximity of observation. So long as Ken Hamm can reasonably claim that no one can attest to things that happened in prehistory, he’ll feel comfortable multiplying parameters to any evidence shown him until he gets back to where he started. Personally, I don’t have a problem with that. But then again, I’m not some left-wing nutjob in desperate need of a safe space.
“Creation bears the marks of Intelligent Design, not blind, purposeless evolution.”" To my knowledge, man has yet to positively identify a single artificial phenomenon not of his own making. And as far as I’m concerned, all nature I’ve experienced exhibits random walks constrained by a very few physical laws within the realm of everyday experience. On the other hand, I can at least simulate similar results (cruder, on a much smaller scale, and with far less granularity) as a matter of design. I can also do some fairly nifty things like fast forward, rewind, set initial conditions at any point I choose, or reach in and perform deus ex machina on any event under simulation. I can create an entire virtual world in seven days along two contradictory trajectories if I so choose; I could even write up the experience in as many words as it took to pen Genesis 1 and 2.
“Evolution is driven by a secular, worldly agenda.” There is no job where people wake up every day and go be evolutionists. That’s not the point. But where it concerns science education, polite conversation, and our increasingly polarized political culture? The vast majority of people talking about evolution are not doing actual work or even studying the vast tapestry of fields impacted by the simple framework of allele frequencies changing in populations over time. The vast majority of people are talking about where other people stand on the “issue.” They’re drawing harsh conclusions about the essential character and competence of people who believe differently from one another. They’re defining in and out crowds based on the tribal signals you convey by saying “I believe in the literal word of God” or “I don’t have time for silly superstition.” They’re drawing connections to largely unrelated disputes over taxes, guns, abortion, marriage, sex, environment, living habits, diet, manner of speaking, fashion, traditions and taboos. They’re looking at the modern world’s vast educational infrastructure and defining the dispute as an apocalyptic fight over the wellbeing of our children. They’re passing laws, setting school curricula, and taking each other to court over where, when and how you express your beliefs one way or another. Where you stand on evolution has consequences socially and professionally. You may be turned out of your home or church. You may be encouraged to avoid a certain line of work. You may lose your job, or end up being a media poster child, or just learn to shut up and go with the prevailing point of view. You end up with many evangelicals shut out from or avoiding mathematics and hard sciences, and the too few who go through keeping their heads down for fear of losing advisors and collaborators in a culture as self-righteously selective as any other clique.
There are many problems with YEC, but the biggest is that it does not represent the Bible accurately. Genesis never says the initial creation was perfect. That one detail is a foundation of YEC. Everything else said falls with it. That includes the assumption that Adam was immortal. If Genesis 1 is true, then God created everything, and everything is all that we find good and all that we find bad. We cannot find anything that God does not take responsibility for making. That even includes our ability to be evil. If God is truly in control of creation, like the rest of the Bible says, then He set up the scenario in the garden and anticipated its outcome. The theologies based on a perfect creation separate God from what He made by letting sin destroy everything that was perfect. Sin becomes mightier than God and God retreats to hide in Heaven. God becomes a small “g” god like all the others man envisions.
To the comments that the Bible does not allow for evolution. Genesis 1 describes animals in large groups and uses the term “kind,” which is not very specific. Biblically, kind simply means animals that are similar in form. No species or genus is mentioned. Most of the animal and plant groups mentioned are not even as specific as Class. Even humans are lumped into “humanity” not two individuals. The chapter is written in generalities not specific animals. Generality lets the lineage of each kind known to the author be from the beginning. Kind means lineage. Linage means change. Change means evolution. Genesis 1 supports evolution.
Good insight, but… sin did not destroy everything. It destroyed the perfection, the peace, the open relationship with God. Sin is essentially disobedience, and the inability or lack of desire to be obedient to God. It is not some independant entity outside of man’s relationship to God.
But sin is not mightier than God. In fact, God provided the consequence for sin. ( a child is not mightier than the parent who sends him to his room). God allowed the possibility of disobedience, and formed the redemption for sin, thus overcoming both sin and the consequences of sin. God even overcame death.
Genesis does not support evolution, although it does permit change (mutations and extinctions). Lineage does not mean change; it means inheritance. Change means change, but Genesis does not really address change; it addresses things being created “after their kind”, implying not after some other kind.
I agree that God is in control and that sin did not destroy everything. It is the way the story is commonly told that forces God to retreat, loss of perfection changes what was created into something that is totally different. I have yet to find a biblical passage that bluntly supports the concept of an originally perfect creation or the loss of that perfection. That includes immortal Adam, a fall from grace, and an inheritance of original sin. The Old Testament has plenty of places these could have been inserted but it wasn’t. The “best” passages come from Paul who was writing to people who understood the world through Greek philosophy. So it is the concept of perfection that was added to the biblical text.
The inheritance through lineage changes the lineage. Even within a limited line one sees change. With every birth, one sees change. Things never really stay the same. The generalities of animals and plants within Genesis 1 and 2 keep the passages from rejecting evolution. The Hebrew word translated as “kind” shows their understanding that creatures share similarities while they are not all the same (Leviticus 11). “Kind” shows a lineage that includes dissimilar attributes along with the similarities. “Kind” accepts the entire lineage, whatever that may be. That concept is not the same as an instantaneous creation of life forms that looked just like they look today. The passage says all the lineages came in stages, which matches paleontology if Gen 1 is read as poetry instead of a list. Gen 1 shows a basic description of evolution.
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you; In [f]toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the [g]plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust,
The inheritance does not change the lineage, except in the fact of the addition of new mates. The changes are limited by the inheritance. You do not expect to get a caucasian child from the mating of two asian or two african aboriginals. Of course, changes happen, but these changes are not a step on a timeless biological evolution.
The new lineages do not strictly speaking match evolutionary characterizations. First, you have plants, then sun and planets, then sea creatures and birds, then land animals. Evolutionary theory postulates land animals before birds, for example, and assumes a sun before plants.
No serious biblical scholar proposes that Genesis 1 is merely poetry… it does not fit the characteristics of Hebrew poetry, even though there may possibly be some parallelism in it.
The passage from Genesis does not satisfy my question. It does not bluntly state anything that relates to lost perfection or immortality. Actually, it doesn’t even say God cursed Adam, not like He cursed Cain. The reader must already believe in a perfect world that was about to change. If perfection is not part of Genesis 1 or the Eden story, if it is not proclaimed by one of the prophets or psalmists, then it is not Hebrew in origin. Without a perfect creation, this passage simply states that Adam’s easy life of gathering in a safe garden was about to change to a life of hard work planting fields and fighting weeds before he died.
Adding mates is part of the lineage. Mating makes an offspring that is not quite like either parent or any of its grandparents. That is how evolution works. It does not make something that is not already available in its lineage so your example is silly. But what is available is quiet variable and given enough time and the right circumstances, great change is possible.
The poetry attribute of Gen 1 has been debated for several hundred years. Their finding show that it is not a “known” form of Hebrew poetry. It still reads as poetry, which is why it is still debated.
I will not say more about it than this, since it appears you have difficulty seeing the obvious… that a curse on man’s work, and on creation which would bring thorns and thistles, and sweaty work, something different than before, clearly indicates a significant change. Cursed is the ground because of you. It does not say, now I will put you into the other garden, which was cursed since time began, and which you had simply been protected from. Because of you is the key.