Creation: Essential for a Healthy Christian Worldview

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 27 March 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Nope. Science is not naturalistic. Science studies how the natural world works. Naturalism is a worldview or philosphy that says that there is nothing outside the natural world, thus precluding the existence of God. Naturalism is not science, but naturalists have hijacked science to make a vehicle for naturalism. Gravity is a natural law that occurs in the world. It is not naturalistic in that it cannot defy the existence of God.

Science is methodological naturalism, it is naturalism, I just didn't add the "methodological" part as I thought it would be assumed as such given the context. As I said last time, you seem to be conflating methodological and philosophical naturalism. You're acting as if evolution is inherently philosophically naturalistic when it is in fact naturalistic in a methodological sense, as is all of science.

I am using naturalistic the way naturalists use the term and how they define Evolution. Most scientists who are atheists are philosophical naturalistis and they are the mainstream proponents of the TOE and define it in terms of philosophical naturalism. Evolution works from natural selection which arises from a philosophical natrualistic worldview.

Quote

Evolution is not like other theories. It is not like gravity. I can observe and test gravity. I can feel its effect. Evolution doesn't have that characterisitc. Evolution is based on Darwinian naturalism. Evolution is not a natural law that we can intuitively observe. You are evidently unable or unwilling to be honest about what naturalism is.

Gravity is based on naturalism, methodological naturalism, but still naturalism. It is not the same thing as philosophical naturalism which is something different than methodological naturalism. Gravity is a natural theory, evolution is a natural theory, albeit both under methodological naturalism, but it's still a form of naturalism despite that it is not the naturalism you want to characterize evolution as. You're equivocating, whether or not it is intentional I do not know.

The problem is that Evolution is philosophically naturalistic. It is a naturalisitc theory that precludes the possibility of God's existence due to natural selection.

Science precludes God as an explanation and is silent on God's existence and possible influence.

Wrong. Science does not deny or confirm God's exisentence. It cannot address God's existence so it is unable to preclude the possibility of God's existence OR His involvement in the creative process. Science is agnostic at best, but it cannot preclude God.

What is it about naturalism that I'm not understanding?

What you are not understanding is that Evolution as a theory is rooted in philosophical naturalism. So calling something methodolgically naturalistic is really just a fancy way of saying what I have already said about the natural world and really contributes nothing of value, importance or substance to the conversation.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 27 March 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

I am using naturalistic the way naturalists use the term and how they define Evolution. Most scientists who are atheists are philosophical naturalistis and they are the mainstream proponents of the TOE and define it in terms of philosophical naturalism. Evolution works from natural selection which arises from a philosophical natrualistic worldview.

You can't take the personal opinions of scientists, even if it is the majority opinion, and apply that to science itself.

I am not operating from anyone's opinion. The TOE is a philosophicaly naturalistic theory. That is simple fact. You'll just have to come to grips with that whether you like it or not.

Regardless, evolution arises from methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism.

Wrong. Natural selection is the workhorse of evolution and it operates from a philosophical naturalistic worldview.

Although it is not part of ToE, there is nothing in it that says God can't or doesn't interfere with mutations or survival of the fittest or God doesn't sustain the natural world so that evolution will take place in a given circumstance.

Yes, there is. Evolution doens't look like God. It doens't agree with God's basic nature and character. Evolution defies God's omnscience. It also defies His omnipotence because God doesn't create imperfection. God, being perfect, cannot create imperfect, unfit creatures.

It's plainly obvious that certain scientific conceptions are incompatible with specific conceptions of God and specific religious doctrines; evolution is incompatible with a literal Adam and Eve for example. However having it incompatible with one concept does not nullify the compatibility between a given scientific theory and theism as a whole. Even if evolution is totally and absolutely incompatible with Christianity, it doesn't then follow that evolution is incompatible with theism; traditional Christianity is a sub-set of theistic thought - Christianity doesn't own the theistic label.

That is where you are fundamentally wrong. There is only one God, one plan of salvation, one way to eternal life and that Jesus Christ. Jesus and Jesus alone has all of the answers to all of the needs of humanity. Hope is found only in Jesus and no one and nothing else. People who trust in Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other "ism" are on a path that leads to destruction. Christianity is exclusive. We don't make room for any other group or any philosophy or worldview. That is because Jesus doesn't make room for them either. Jesus said that He is the way, the truth and the life and that no man comes to the Father except through Him. He alone is the way to God and HE alone has the power to impart eternal life.

That is something that we has to be made clear. If the Bible got it wrong in Genesis, then anything built on that foundation is faulty. If evolution is incompatible with Adam and Eve, it is incompatible with the resst of the Bible as well and with God's self-disclosure in the Bible.

How does natural selection preclude the existence of God (recall I'm not looking for how natural selection precludes God as an explanation, as all science does that)? How is this different than the wholly naturalistic theory of gravity?

Natural selection is unguided, unplanned and impersonal. You cannot have a personal creator as an explanation for an impersonal mode of creation. Gravit is a natural law that God created. God created the laws the universe operates by. I will grant that they are methodolically naturalistic. But the philosophy of naturalism which is the worldview behind natural selection says that there is no God and that the world is all there is.

I'm not saying science can preclude God's existence, rather science is silent on God's existence (another way of saying science is agnostic to the existence of God, just slightly different wording with slightly different philosophical ramifications, but basically the same thing - at least for this level of discussion).

My point is that is science does not preclude God as an explanation for the unverse. Science is mute either way. Science does not deny nor confirm God's exiseence and it does not deny or confirm God as an explanation for the created order, either.

Well there is a huge difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism; one makes absolute statements about the supernatural realm and one is silent/agnostic about the entire thing, sort of the exact opposite of each other there.

Yes, and evolutoin is rooted in philosophical naturalism as it is based on natural selection . The very concept of natural selection is absent of an intelligent influence or involvement.

[enoob57]

I think at the end of the day, I believe that people like Dr. Francis Collins are true Christians. I mean by this that I believe they would be going to heaven [assuming the Bible is true] and that they truly love and worship Christ. I also believe that they have a dilemma, as Viole pointed out. The story of the Garden of Eden is as vital as any regarding the Christian faith, without it you are left with wondering why Christ needed to be sacrificed.

The main difference between Collins and myself, is that I actually have the nerve to be consistent in my rejection [doubt] of scripture

You have merely set your belief system with your own authority as administrator.... may I ask how you will enforce this for all of eternity? Love, Steven

[mizzdy]

I think at the end of the day, I believe that people like Dr. Francis Collins are true Christians. I mean by this that I believe they would be going to heaven [assuming the Bible is true] and that they truly love and worship Christ. I also believe that they have a dilemma, as Viole pointed out. The story of the Garden of Eden is as vital as any regarding the Christian faith, without it you are left with wondering why Christ needed to be sacrificed.

The main difference between Collins and myself, is that I actually have the nerve to be consistent in my rejection [doubt] of scripture

Yeshua was not really 'sacrificed' He is actually the anti-type, He as not being quarted, impaled, eaten or burned up in a fire. With Adams sin entrophy entered the world, it took someone who was not of this world yet also from this world to set that back and allow those who choose freely to enter into everlasting life because of what He did. He didnt just take your, mine but the entire worlds sins upon Him and conquer death for us.

[enoob57]

You have merely set your belief system with your own authority as administrator.... may I ask how you will enforce this for all of eternity? Love, Steven

I'm an organic being, I have control over my mind for a short time span until my demise.

You are actually a three part being body=organic / soul=Mind,will, emotion / spiritual=dead or regenerated

The part where you feel you have control -really- this statement qualifies toward delusional...

Do we not react to outward influence beyond our control every single day???

Please take this in the spirit it is given-> my life is not my own but everyday I am faced with decisions by outward

occurrences that dictate a modified response of what I would have normally done! This outlay of life is certainly unpredictable

and includes the horrors of events bringing about forces that we would never choose but as come what may ->come they do! We certainly have no say after death from experiential standpoint but all is built upon faith -whatever- we choose to to believe and place trust in >as so< to put our faith = hope of eternity in without the luxury of sight... Love, Steven

[Reformed-cross]

I say creation as revealed to us in Genesis 1-3 must necessarily be literal. The prophets dealt with it as literal, the geneologies deal with it as literal, Christ deals with hit as literal, the apostles deal with it as literal, therefore it should be interpreted by Christians in a literal way.

It is completely reasonable, right and logical to treat the Genesis text in a literal fashion; due to its handling by the sacred writers the Christian builds upon those texts interpreted in that light.

There is nothing grammatically within the sacred text that points us away from literal-ness. In fact, the texts dont work at all as myth, allegory, legend, ethical story or what have you.

The layering of theisitic evolution is nothing more than pandering to the agnostic view of scripture. In short, its a way of soft-selling the bible to those who place more faith in the pseudo-science of evolution. I call it evolosophy. For some of you, this might seem out of the ordinary, but evolution is a philosophy, its driven by a world-view that is anti-theistic.

The layering of paleontology, or anthropology upon the philosophy that undergirds an anti-theistic view only muddies the waters, but it doesnt actually hide the reality of a philosophically driven science.

Allow me to toss out a few tidbits.

There is nothing unbiased about any scientist, they are people as we all are and they function with a set of assumptions as all of us do. Their worldview will give them the appropriate interpretation of rocks, bones, dinorsaurs as well as anything of a theistic or Christian perspective.

Its utterly ridiculous to tell anyone that scientists come to the their studies a clean slate. They do not, they cannot interpret anything outside of their own biases. They do not judge or weigh any evidence that is not in line with their own pre-conceived notions. Even when they do run afoul of things that demand a theistic answer these scientists will dodge that bullet and jump to Alien-invasions, Intelligent beings helped genetically engineer the human race and alot of other pseudo-science non-sense packaged in technical sounding extrapolations.

The real joke is that our dear friends who do believe in the bible in some form, run to these folks as an authority as to earth age, interpretation of bone fragments, carbon dating etc. In short, these theistic evolutionists are adding more myth to their own mixture of ideas. Then of course a book is written, scientific journals are quoted, facts are recited, Dr. so and so is quoted, conclusions are delivered in a logical fashion...all irrefutably asserting evolution is the truth to hold on to. Well, excuse me for spitting out this worm-soup. I dont buy it.

Why?, why cant I buy evolution? Because there is no real science to support the darwinian non-sense. There is no intermediates, there is no missing links, there is no real proof of natural selection. So, when the science gets really thin, the only thing that can propel the skeptic love-affair with all things agnostic is a little extrapolation, you know "hey I found a ray gun in the back yard". Wow, someone says....."That means there must be a Star-Trek Enterprise near by". Thats how its done, Im supposed to buy the "Enterprise" because the inconclusive evidence points the naturalist to the only thing that makes sense...."It cant be God cause he's not an answer to any scientific question". It must be some one or something else. Ok, so what are you proposing Mr. Science Guy? Well, for one, weve got a skeleton that looks like a really deformed man, but its probably not deformed, its probably not an ape, its probably not a human, its probably a 'human ancestor'. So, let me get this right....

The methodological naturalism demands that I must conclude "only what is empirically proven", but I dont have empirical proof, I only have probability that its not the contrary. Plus, I am supposedly not scientific if I derive an answer that points to God as a creator....because I am demanded by science? NO, I am demanded by the philosophy of naturalism to exclude God from any explanations.

Oh I see, just because the science behind electronics expects me to conclude that my electrons are short circuiting, also demands that the existence of atomic structure cannot have a Divine creator?

Isnt that a philosophy? Yea, Isnt that philosophy undergirding a methodology within scientific inquiry? Yes. Then how on earth can any scientist holding to this philosophy or method ever arrive at the truth behind real science? Well, they cant. All they can do is play in the sand-box of life and pretend to themselves that the sand-box always existed, it always had sand in it and its walls arose as a matter of time and chance and there's enough chaos in the world to vaguely say "well it just happened thats all"....But, God didnt do it.

So, while my little ditty is tedious, its just the tip of the iceberg for a full blown rejection of evolution and the science behind the naturalistic origins.

Ill help you out. The faith of some of the scientists is there is no God. The myth of evolution is asserted as a fact when the only fact that evolution does have is its reliance upon myth and extrapolation.

The data declared to be the end all of scientific discovery never gets consensus from the scientific community. The conclusions reached by bone fragments and fossiles do not display balanced, clear observation but endless mythologizing the evolution of man.

It might as well be said, the modern scientist is not much better than the pagan tribe worshipping airplanes flying over. They cannot understand what they see, and what the do see is extrapolated into something other than what it is. So, pardon me for containing a large amount of contempt towards evolutionists, darwinian naturalists, philosophical naturalism, and run of the mill loonies who admix TV, Natgeo, discovery channel, the New paper, Scientific American magazine, and a steady dose of atheist propoganda whereby they pour all this into their minds and expect me to bow down to "facts".

These supposed facts which they do not have and which when brought out into the open is an embarassing mix of mythology and bad science.

Before you say it...."he hates science". Nope, thats a knee-jerk response. I love science and I have every since I was little. What I dont like is the hijacking of science by myth-makers under the guise of darwinianism, so what could be learned by science is hidden and what we get is 'flat-earth' mentality. The very thing the Christian is accused of, is the very thing the evolutionist tries to pass off. Not only that but just as the inquisitors of the Middle Ages wanted silence its detractors, the Scientific community has its own persecutors...

Oh...I can hear it now..."Yea and religions are like that too". Well, that only helps to prove my point and it forces me to lay down just why I believe Christianity to be a viable, truthful explanation for the reality of now and of the past.

R.E.

[Guest]

I say creation as revealed to us in Genesis 1-3 must necessarily be literal. The prophets dealt with it as literal, the geneologies deal with it as literal, Christ deals with hit as literal, the apostles deal with it as literal, therefore it should be interpreted by Christians in a literal way.

It is completely reasonable, right and logical to treat the Genesis text in a literal fashion; due to its handling by the sacred writers the Christian builds upon those texts interpreted in that light.

There is nothing grammatically within the sacred text that points us away from literal-ness. In fact, the texts don't work at all as myth, allegory, legend, ethical story or what have you.

The layering of theistic evolution is nothing more than pandering to the agnostic view of scripture. In short, its a way of soft-selling the bible to those who place more faith in the pseudo-science of evolution. I call it evolosophy. For some of you, this might seem out of the ordinary, but evolution is a philosophy, its driven by a world-view that is anti-theistic.

The layering of paleontology, or anthropology upon the philosophy that under-girds an anti-theistic view only muddies the waters, but it doesn't actually hide the reality of a philosophically driven science....

Yes

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

Amen

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

And Amen

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

~

Truth

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

And Fables

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

What Will You Eat

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16

Beloved What's For Dinner, Man's Folly Or The Word Of Jesus

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. John 6:35

And Who Will You Bow To, Who Will You Choose To Hope In And To Worship With Total Adoration

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

~

Believe

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:10-14

And Be Blessed Beloved

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Joe

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 28 March 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

I am not operating from anyone's opinion. The TOE is a philosophicaly naturalistic theory. That is simple fact. You'll just have to come to grips with that whether you like it or not.

ToE is not a philosophically naturalistic theory, nothing in science is - this is basic scientific philosophy.

The TOE IS naturalistic philosophically. That is its inherent value to atheists. In fact Dawkins makes the point that evolution is what a completely self-fulfilled atheist. The naturalistic value of Evolution is that is unguided, uplanned and impersonal.

Do you honestly think that so many scientists would would accept evolution and God if the two were so antithetical? Even the co-founder of ToE was a theist.

Ithnk part of the problem here is that "theist" doesn't mean "Christian." Christians are theists, but not all theists are Christians. From a secular point of view, Buddhists and Hindue are "theists." The problem is not with making Evolution compatible with theism. The problem is in making it compatible with the Bible. The Bible is not some generiec theist document. It states that God not only created the earth by supernatural means, by speaking it into existence, but that God created everything in perfect state.

The TOE argues that everything came into being by purely natural means, and without the assistance any outside intelligence. It is impersonal and natural, not supernatural and certainly did not come into existence in a perfect state.

Again, Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on supernatural thought, traditionally it is a sub-set of theism, and even theism is a sub-set of thoughts pertaining to the supernatural.

Christianity is the only that's got it right. There is no other way to God except through Jesus Christ. All other relgions/faiths lead to eternal destruction (hell). Jesus is the only who has the answers to the worlds problems and needs and no one else does.

Someone can reject Shiloh's beliefs about the supernatural and of God and still believe in the supernatural and God.

You can believe in God and still not believe God. Therein lies the heart of the problem. Lot's of people believe in God still go to hell, because they don't believe Him.

Science does precludes God as a scientific explanation for the universe, and of any phenomena, however.

To "preclude" means to make impossible." Science does not make God as the explanation for the universe imipossible. Science does not deny or confirm God's existence. So until you can come to grips with that little bit of truth, we are not going to get anywere at all.

[hippias]

This is is very well written article. However, there are a few points that are not quite obvious for me:

In order for the natural laws God set in motion to continue operating in

concert with one another requires God to be all knowing, all powerful, and

omnipresent. The creation model teaches us that God is present everywhere. In

addition, it teaches us that God is all knowing. God would end each creative

period seeing that what He made was �good.� It means that God was satisfied

with what He had made. God made everything complete and fully functional

according to the purpose and plan He had assigned to it. There is nothing

about this universe that escapes His attention. Only God who is all powerful,

could create not only this world, but the countless trillions of luminaries,

stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae, etc. all with the single purpose of

speaking to the creativity, wisdom and limitless power of the God who made

them.

This is something I don't understand: Why shouldn't it be sufficient in order to

create a world like this to be omniscient and all powerful? Could you explain

why so to speak a minor deity that is only 10000 times as clever and potent as

an ordinary human being would not be able to create this world? Of course our

world is very complex and intricate but this is my human judgement: perhaps if

I were only 10 times as clever I am it might appear simple.

The Bible teaches us in Genesis 1 that God made man after His own image and

likeness. This is of course, speaking in moral terms. It means that God gave

man the ability to appreciate the things God appreciates and to relate to God

both spiritually and intellectually.

Is there any (scriptual) evidence for this assertion of yours? Especially that

the likeness is limited to the aspect that you mention is doubtful. On a bad

day one could even term it blasphemous to say that there is much likeness

between the moral of man and that of God. When Adam begot Seth it is said that

he was after Adam's image (Gen. 5:3) Do you really suggest that they were only

related by moral terms without resemblance?! And regarding 1 Cor. 11:7-8 (For

a man indeed ought not to cover his head, inasmuch as he is the image and

glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the

woman, but the woman of the man.) the word image seems to transport more than

what you claimed.

Best,

hippias

[~candice~]

The TOE IS naturalistic philosophically. That is its inherent value to atheists. In fact Dawkins makes the point that evolution is what a completely self-fulfilled atheist. The naturalistic value of Evolution is that is unguided, uplanned and impersonal.

Ithnk part of the problem here is that "theist" doesn't mean "Christian." Christians are theists, but not all theists are Christians. From a secular point of view, Buddhists and Hindue are "theists." The problem is not with making Evolution compatible with theism. The problem is in making it compatible with the Bible. The Bible is not some generiec theist document. It states that God not only created the earth by supernatural means, by speaking it into existence, but that God created everything in perfect state.

The TOE argues that everything came into being by purely natural means, and without the assistance any outside intelligence. It is impersonal and natural, not supernatural and certainly did not come into existence in a perfect state.

ToE doesn't argue that everything came into being by purely natural means without the assistance of a creator. That has nothing to do with the theory - the theory is about explaining the mechanisms of observed phenomena and facts. At the same time gravity gives as much credit to God in formulating gravity and holding up its laws as does evolution give credit to God for guiding the process or holding up existence in such a way that makes evolution an emergent property of natural providence. You really cannot say that evolution is naturally philosophical yet gravity isn't. I've only seen you address how evolution doesn't jive with your interpretation of Christianity and God, not how evolution is philosophically naturalistic. And I agree, your version of Christianity is incompatible with evolution, as it is incompatible with nearly all science in the past 100 years or more.

Yes, theist doesn't mean Christian. And Philosophical naturalism does not mean only against Christianity. You can be dead against Christianity in all forms and still not be a philosophical naturalist. I'm not using code words where "theist" means "only Christian". "Theist" means "theist", and Christianity is only a sub-set of theism and theism is a sub-set of supernatural thought/belief as I've stated many times now. I'm not arguing whether or not evolution is compatible with your views, I know they're not. And while I think evolution is compatible with Christianity, that is no where close to the subject at hand; what I am saying is that evolutionary theory is not philosophically naturalistic, it is methodologically naturalistic like everything else in science. Just like gravity is.

I know many atheists that disagree with Dawkins, and I bet that if Dawkins lived in the 16th century he'd think that Copernicus' theory would make you a self fulfilled atheist instead. Either way, this is Dawkins personal opinion, and he is not reflecting the view of the scientific community here nor is he giving a science lesson. I can easily just point to Collins, or Miller, or even the co-founder of evolution itself to show evolutionary theory is not inherently philosophically naturalistic, at least in the same sense that gravity is.

Christianity is the only that's got it right. There is no other way to God except through Jesus Christ. All other relgions/faiths lead to eternal destruction (hell). Jesus is the only who has the answers to the worlds problems and needs and no one else does.

You can believe in God and still not believe God. Therein lies the heart of the problem. Lot's of people believe in God still go to hell, because they don't believe Him.

That's all nice an' dandy, but it doesn't address the subject at all. Fact remains, you can still believe in the supernatural and God - thus antithetical to philosophical naturalism by definition - and not be close to believing in Christianity or Christ or the One True God.

To "preclude" means to make impossible." Science does not make God as the explanation for the universe imipossible. Science does not deny or confirm God's existence. So until you can come to grips with that little bit of truth, we are not going to get anywere at all.

I understand all of that, I even stated it several times in this thread. However, you need to come to grips with basic scientific philosophy in that God is precluded as a scientific explanation. Science knows it has limits, it doesn't pontificate about the supernatural which is the realm of God. Therefore science precludes, to make impossible; science makes it impossible for God to be a scientific explanation. Thus you cannot say evolutionary theory precludes God while gravity doesn't; both preclude God as a scientific explanation but are silent regarding explanations dealing with the meta/supernatural.

Shiloh, do you see the difference between a scientific explanation and an ontological one? Do you see the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism? Do you see that you can reject Christianity and not be a philosophical naturalist?

I agree. But what seems to be lost is that accepting methodological naturalism is not synonymous with the strong statement that "God didn't create". The two are not polar opposites, and as you are saying, one does not really inform the other. Studying the naturalistic process by which creation occurred is not the same as attributing those processes to a Creator. Evolution is not compatible with the physical-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but it the physical-literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 doesn't get to define who is (authentically) Christian and who isn't.