[__ Science __ ] A Literal Adam Is Not the Issue

[AIG.com]

A defense of only the historical Adam without the rest of the creation account is incomplete.

Continue reading...

 

[Barbarian]

AIG again falls into the usual trap of making up their own stories instead of actually learning the science:

"Evolution is a three-part theory attempting to explain all of reality: cosmological, geological, and biological (including human) evolution. We cannot divide up the theory and just accept parts of it. As I show here, it is all based on the Bible-denying, philosophical worldview assumptions of naturalism (i.e., atheism)."

The scientific definition of biological evolution is mere "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." This, of course, is the observed phenomenon. What has AIG's hackles up (pun intended) is consequences of this phenomenon, like common descent. There is no theory of "geological evolution". of course, but there is a theory of "stellar evolution." This is why Darwin only used the term "evolution" once in his book. He prefered the more specific "descent with modfication."

But AIG does not. Darwin's term makes obfuscation and deception so much harder for them.