"Um...you ever notice how astonishingly well genesis fits the Theory? Besides, the Fall exists as a seperate tale set within the Creation Story. has to do with when they finally wrote down centuries of oral tradition. If you want to take Adam and Eve as analogy, that's up to you. But if that is so, then Adam and Eve would not have been part of an OMNIMIND of God...they would have evolved from more limited beings.
Or am I misunderstanding what you are speculating?"
By your implied logic here, Genesis is still used as a metaphor. Assuming the creation story to have taken placed within an Evolutionary Context thereby allows for Adam/Eve as literal figures.. but even so, the facts remain that they are symbolically named. "Adham" is a Hebrew stand in for "Man" [in the plural sense] and is derived from "Adhamam" [spelled something like this] that means "From the Dust." No one in the Jewish world would have ever had a name such as this.
Anyway, it is highly unlikely that if somehow, the human race's first "chicken from the egg" [in reference to the first human evolved from a non-human creation] would even recognize it's own humanity in order to write it down.. much less transmit it in total exclusivity to Jewish culture.
What I mean to say is that the creation story can serve equally as well within these scientific frameworks if allowed to be interpreted in respect to the creation of human consciousness. I mean OmniMind as a reference to a sort of primordal, infinite intelligence humans are incapable of knowing. The fall is therefore analogous to the separation of Ego and Archetype, if these references suit you.
"Using your same logic then we must assume science is the only viable answer to all matters of faith. You believe if nothing jives with science then it must be patently false. In other words science trumps spirituality. However, there are holes in scientific theory, including evolution and origins. And, as long as there are holes, then science is not absolute. And since science is not absolute, then nothing can solely rest upon it. This not to say that science has no merit, but it is not final, authoritative, or can be used to measure against.
I continue to believe in a literal 6-day creation and a literal Adam and Eve... for now. But, it certainly won't be science that will change my mind; only faith, theology, and revelation."
I'm sorry friend but you have completely misunderstood my logical foundation and I must confess I certainly do not understand yours either.
I do not mean to project the absolutism of science. It is silly. How can science explain to me how Love FEELS, or for that matter, how anything FEELS? Science is blind to almost 100% of the universe's working - how things FEEL. I know, it just puts scientific materialists in the most idiotic of lights.
I mean in the long run whether you believe in six days or not is completely irrelevant.. Which I suppose you argue puts it in the same boat as science.
As is the truth of Adam&Eve as fundamental peoples.. Totally irrelevant to my point.
What I mean to say is that fundamentally, we were once in harmony with this Omnipowerful Intelligence and Wisdom. We lived in the most perfect display of beauty. In this land everything flowed according to His principles - everything was in unity, oneness, halcyon resonance.
Then, by means of "knowledge of good and evil" [which I take must require one fundamental precept: consciousness itself] man fell out of this perfect state.
We had to discern for ourselves what was Good and what was not, and this fundamentally separated us from the previously living paradise..
It raises a lot of metaphysical subjects regarding the relevancy of the mind within the working of the natural world. Quantum physics anyone? :]