Christianity is based upon the notion that Jesus died for the sins of man, and that personal salvation and eternal life is obtained through acceptance of Jesus as the savior. Central to this belief is the story of the creation of man/woman in Genesis, which describes how the naughty Adam and Eve ticked off God, the result of which was “original sin” as Christians call it. Jesus provided all of man with salvation from the “original sin” of Adam. This is well-documented in Scripture. Jesus himself wasa Jew, of course, and he is described in the Bible as a believer in, and teacher of, “the Law,” which of course was the Torah, which contains the Adam and Eve fable.
Thus Christianity is premised upon the link between Adam and Jesus. The Catholic Catechism, for example, describes how the Adam and Eve story must be accepted literally, not just metaphorically. Without Adam’s fall from grace, there is no reason for a Savior.
Granted, Christians who do not believe that the Bible is literally true can rationalize that the creation of man described in Genesis is metaphor, and that God actually created bacteria and left it to natural selection to work out the gradual evolution of man about 16 billion years later, but that doesn’t seem to show much interest on God’s part, nor especially does it explain original sin and a need for a Savior.
You explained it simply beautifully.
If I may add one more thing that is important to understand.
There is so much historically to consider to see the attack on Biblical Christianity over the past 150 or so years. For anyone questioning, you have to understand Marx, Darwin, and the organization of leftist groups in the early 20th century and their agenda. They had to first attack the foundation of Christianity. That foundation was Genesis. And that was attacked in the 1920s with the Scopes Trial.
Do you know what organization was behind the suit?
Citation please
Thanks for the sharp, excellent reply, btw. You bring up something which I hadn't considered too carefully. I too think that evolution and Christianity are in some way incongruent, if only because prominent evolutionists keep assuring me that it is so. It is true that original sin is a Christian dogma. While it may be possible to metaphorically interpret Genesis, it isn't possible to remove the doctrine of original sin from Christianity, for reasons that you explained. So we see that the incompatibility of Christianity and evolutionism does not really have to do with a literal six days of creation and so on, but something deeper and more fundamental: the fall from Grace and the Incarnation.
It seems then, to reduce it to a frank level, biologists offer Christians a choice: either to reject Christianity and believe in evolution, or remain Christian and reject evolution. A third possibility would be to accept both and not to think too much about it--not to pursue the implications of either too far. As one bishop once remarked, 'a Christian who is an evolutionist is probably not much of either.'