This being the secular thread, I am allowing myself a bit of freedom.
As per @RJM above, it was suggested by a lecturer on my (very traditional Catholic) theology degree that 'Adam and Eve' might refer to a collective rather than an individual.
I feel a lot like juantoo3 with regard to The Migrant Mind blog he links to. I, too, do not necessarily agree with the conclusion, and I certainly don't agree with the last paragraph:
Nothing said or proclaimed there (Genesis 2-3) is true. This should not be the view of people who think that the Scripture contains the way of Salvation.
Too black and white – there's no room for discernment in a book which contains a number of distinctly different narrative forms.
How can such a false book (in their view) really be trusted to tell us the metaphysical truths that we are unable to verify.
Well as the empirical sciences cannot verify or validate metaphysical truth as such is, by its definition, outside its remit.
On the other hand, other sciences, and not limited to theology, do allow that Genesis does convey truths 'of the human condition', offers a profound and meaningful discourse on what it is to be human, and indeed lays the foundation of a metaphysical paradigm.
(As an aside, with regard to 'the empirical science method' being the benchmark of truth, I regard this as a narrow and rather myopic view of science and, in my opinion, one we still need to shake off, or evolve out of, or at the very least review, as mosts scientists seem to accept that such is no longer the case in fields where empirical data eludes us.)
This is why a historical reading of Genesis is necessary--it is necessary for the trustworthiness of scripture.
These statements are in themselves 'unscientific', indeed as 'unscientific' as the common view of evolution.
I mean no criticism of the departed author, but were I in the position to talk to him I would ask if he has ever discussed this with those who believe in evolution and the Bible? I feel sure he must have, did he think us lightweight?
