Nevertheless, it looks increasingly likely that most if not all Western Christians will soon decide to believe Evolution and I'm totally okay with that as a Christian, no matter how much it bothers me as a Skeptic. Therefore, with my personal mixed feelings aside, I must hereby declare that with RJS' final summary of Peter Enns' new book, The Evolution of Adam, it looks increasingly likely that Enns has done all Western Christians a real favor.
While Jesus and Paul both spoke of Adam as if Genesis were historical, the weight that Paul places on Adam's original sin was about "the deep, foundational plight of the human condition" something that Enns says Paul merely "expressed in the biblical idiom available to him." Furthermore, "God's solution through the resurrection of Christ" obviously remains the same in either case. Yes, I just said that. Please note:
Although I'm usually the last one to embrace solutions where "historicity doesn't matter because the meaning's the same", it's a fair statement in this particular case because the investigation was ideological through and through. In other words, the only good** reason to investigate this issue was to consider if Paul's argument in Romans still works. According to Peter Enns, it still does. The Evolution of Adam may not be complete, but this book is a major contribution in these ongoing developments. About that much, there can be no question.
* Evolution, if true, is nothing less than divinely miraculous, and utterly non-accidental. Logically, even given whatever bajillions of years for everything to transpire, the odds against all that are still so ridiculous that only Deus Ex Machina could explain all the diverse biological complexity that's developed to this point. So while "Intelligent Design" isn't viably scientific, it remains good logic that absolutely does beg the question. If God's required, why did he choose to Evolve us so slowly?
* The Genesis story, if true, is at best a poor representation of actual facts. Logically, unless God and Adam spoke Hebrew before the Tower of Babel, then at least *some* of the aspects in Gen 1-3 are merely intended to portray, using words as best as anyone could have, a version of things known/believed at the time. So while there's no grounds to make Genesis totally "figurative", it remains less than 'incontrovertible video evidence'. If that's precisely what happened, how come it all doesn't really make sense?
** The other reason some will keep fighting about this is because Evangelical hardliners feel that Paul's evocations of Adam must be taken as evidence of Adam's historicity. Obviously, that's a major reason Enns wrote the book, but for my feelings on all that, see here.