@Matthew Adam was not an individual human being. The primary meaning of the Hebrew word אָדָם ('āḏām) is "human, humankind." That is what "Adam" stands for in the early chapters of Genesis. He is a figure representing the earliest human culture that had developed spiritual awareness, and thus became truly human, rather than being a mere animal as before.

The two creation stories in Genesis are not about the creation of the physical universe, but about the spiritual creation of humans, similar to Paul's words about our becoming a "new creation" in Christ in 2 Corinthians 5:17. They are metaphorical stories, secularly known as "myths," not in the sense of "stories that aren't true," but in the sense of "stories that have deeper meanings about the human condition."

In terms of human pre-history, these stories are about when God first infused spiritual awareness into early hominids who had previously been animals like other animals, without any spiritual awareness or higher abilities to think, understand, and love unselfishly.

@OnlyTrueGod I am not a scientist. But in general, scientific method involves observing some aspect of the physical universe, forming theories about how it works, testing those theories through further observation with the aim of disproving them if possible, and then, if they are not disproven by many experiments conducted by multiple scientists, accepting them as probably true, subject to future theories and experiments that may either disprove or refine them.

This is not at all the approach that the Intelligent Design people, aka Creationists, take. They read the Bible (literally, of course), then go looking for evidence to support it. Whatever evidence they can find that seems to them to support it, they glom onto and trumpet. Whatever evidence does not support it they reject.

This is, in fact, the antithesis of scientific method. Scientists are doing their best to disprove their theories if that is possible. Only when they have been unable to do so, but instead all of their experiments support the theory, do they accept the theory as provisionally true.

In scientific method, a theory is valid only if it is "falsifiable," meaning that some experiment could objectively show that it is false. If a theory is not falsifiable, then it is not accepted as a scientific theory.

Creationists, on the other hand, already know what they believe, and they go about trying to support that belief with whatever evidence they can find that seems to them to support it. Any evidence that would falsify it they reject altogether, because it conflicts with their already existing belief about how things happened.

Once again, this is the exact opposite of scientific method.

@GratefulDisciple I took a look at the handout. It confirms my view that Catholics not only have a very materialistic view of the Eucharist, thinking that the host is the actual, physical body of Christ, but they also do not understand the meaning and function of sacrifice in the Old Testament.

@GratefulDisciple Not everything about the mainstream Christian view is wrong. It's just been so hopelessly mixed with doctrines that are wrong that even the true things have been falsified.

@OnlyTrueGod To sum up, Creationists think they already know the truth, and they go about seeking to prove that they are right. Scientists realize that they know very little, and that even what they do know may not be right, so they go about seeking to discover what is true, and to reject what is not.

Another way of saying this is that Creationists operate out of hubris, whereas scientists operate out of humility.

Creationists set out to prove that they are right. Scientists set out to push back the boundaries of their ignorance.

@LeeWoofenden I think I see what you're saying. The theories aren't vulnerable from the perspective of those advocating them, which true scientific theories ought to be. Do you think many evolutionary biologists simply rule creationist theories out due to background beliefs the evolutionists hold? Do you think many (officially) scientists actually do set out to prove they are right instead of figure out where they're wrong?

@OnlyTrueGod Yes, scientific theories are vulnerable, and they do get overturned or superseded from time to time. But more than that, scientists who actually follow scientific method (not all of them do) are willing to be shown that they are wrong, and are willing to be corrected.

@OnlyTrueGod I don't think evolutionary biologists rule out creationist theories because of some "background beliefs." They rule out creationist theories because the vast weight of scientific evidence and facts just don't support creationist theories.

Similarly, scientists and other people who know that the earth is spherical don't rule out the flat earth theory because of some "background beliefs" about the earth. They rule out flat earth theory because there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is spherical, not flat.

Creationists and flat-earthers are driven by ideology. A good scientist is driven by facts. Creationists and flat-earthers commonly assume that scientists are driven by ideology just as they themselves are. That is an error.

@OnlyTrueGod And yes, of course there are some scientists that are out to prove that they are right. But assuming the scientific institutions aren't corrupted by government and corporate money, sooner or later the truth will come out due to the very nature of scientific method.

The facts and the evidence won't support a wrong theory no matter how much a particular group of scientists want it to be right. And no matter how much government and corporate money is put into supporting a particular conclusion, if there are at least some uncorrupted scientists and institutions, those theories will eventually be proven wrong.

It is precisely because religious institutions, especially fundamentalist ones, are not willing to be shown that they are wrong that they cannot let go of their false beliefs. They think that to do so would mean being unfaithful to God and the Bible. So they're stuck with their dogmas. No amount of biblical, rational, or scientific evidence will sway them.

In the afterlife, they will be commended for their faithfulness. But they'll still have to give up their false beliefs before moving on to heaven.

@LeeWoofenden Right, so which part of Luke 3 is fictional?

@LeeWoofenden Your blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of ID is a very large part of why I don't take your claims seriously. Likewise your laughable assertion that scientists are trying to disprove Darwinism. Yes, there are scientists trying to disprove it. Nearly all of them are slurred as "Creationists", whether or not they actually are.

@LeeWoofenden Seriously, have you dealt with Materialists at all?