Yes, I'm aware. But it's useless. "Hurr durr I learned about evolution and therefore original sin didn't happen." Now I don't know a lot about Christian theology, but does it even matter that original sin didn't happen, so long as people sinned anyway?
He mentions that there are plenty of theists who accept Darwin. Why are they wrong? He just goes on about how they can't be reconciled and doesn't avail himself to explain why. I can't see anything to be gained here except an understanding of how utterly estranged from reality creationists are.
What does 'Open Thread' mean, btw?
Now I don't know a lot about Christian theology, but does it even matter that original sin didn't happen, so long as people sinned anyway?
Very much so, according to that theology. The point of original sin there is that it means nobody can be blameless, even in principle, i.e. all people are tainted by Adam and Eve's actions; opinions differ on whether this represents some sort of ancestral culpability or is supposed to work in a more metaphysical way. Either way, it leads directly to the idea that people need divine intervention to be absolved of tha...
This person seems to have the virtue of non-compartmentalization. What rationalist skill can we learn from this? Maybe look for ways a strong belief in one domain, to another where it's more testable?
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/i_was_a_fundamentalist_until_science_changed_my_mind_partner/