To say I am the most science based is a fair assessment. I make no bones about the fact that I started with the scientific worldview and this was the perceptual filter through which I read the Bible. It is unavoidable that we all read the Bible with some perceptual filter or another, for scientists have demonstrated that there is no perception independent of belief. Furthermore I am always defending the epistemological superiority of science, only drawing the line against the naturalist premise that the scientific worldview represents the limit of reality.
Yet you can also say that I am fairly orthodox. Enough that I find aleo a little too unorthodox at times. I am Trinitarian and I stick pretty close to the Bible, taking Genesis to be historical just not without some symbolism involved in the A&E story. I am not Calvinist or Arminian but open theist. I am a 5 solas Protestant in the western (non-Baptist) evangelical tradition, though I tend to agree more with the Eastern Orthodox on a number of theological issues.
aleo’s “decined invitation” as opposed to a “fall from Grace” way of looking at things is not unreasonable considering how brief the whole Eden state of man was anyway. I have a bigger problem with his focus on altruism versus selfishness which I think already has an adequate explanation in evolution. The difference between man and animals is simply language and the human mind constructed in that medium. And I think the fall was about self-destructive habits called sin which not only separates us from God but is much like a degenerative illness destroying all of our free will, love, and growth potential.