Evolution doesn't discredit the Garden of Eden scenario in the least. Here's how I take Gen. 1. If you read the story literally, it's about how God ordered the cosmos to function, not about its material manufacture. Let's look at a few examples. On day 1 do you notice that when he's talking about light, he's not talking about what our physicists call light, but how light functions: to give us a period of light that we call day. And the darkness functions to give us a period of darkness that we call night. Light and darkness function in regular alternating sequence to give us evening and morning. The regular rhythm of evening and morning mean that what God is doing is ordering these things to give us the function of time.

Look at day 3. The text is not about how God created anything, but what the role and function of the earth is: to bring forth vegetation for the cycles and circles of life and for our survival. That's how the earth functions.

Look at day 4. It tells us specifically at the sun, moon, and stars function to give us seasons – our calendar. And on day 6 we learn what the role and function of humans is: to rule the earth and subdue it. In other words, to be partners with God and take care of the earth and care for it well as a holy place. That's our role and function.

So you see, if we look at the text and read it literally, it is literally about how God has ordered the cosmos and earth and life to function, not about how it came to be. Certainly the Bible teaches that God is the creator. But what Gen. 1 is about is how he ordered it all to function.

Therefore, Evolution does not disprove the garden of Eden story. Genesis does not tell us what mechanism God used to create, or how long he took to do it. It just assures us that God ordered it to function well. In the ancient world something was considered to have been created when it had a function. So also here.

Therefore evolution is very much a possibility within the biblical picture. Scripture and science are both how God reveals himself to us, so they can't and don't and won't contradict. Science tells us that life evolved; the Bible is fine with that.

It's possible then, that Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, but only human beings that had evolved to the point where God deemed worthy to reveal himself to them, give them souls, and teach them about himself and good and evil. In that sense, they become the first of their kind: people to whom God has revealed himself. And the garden of Eden could be a very real place, and I believe it was. I believe Adam and eve for historical people, but not necessarily (and probably not) the first people. There were most likely many other hominids around.

also doesnt evolution disprove the whole garden of eden story?

sorry i dont mean "story" but like, y'know, the scenario.

Christians don't believe in pantheism, where all is God and God is all. Christian theology teaches that God is wholly other. It's interesting to ponder the relationship between spiritual reality and physical reality, and how not only communication but communion can happen between the two realities. Can God be both transcendent and imminent? How does a being outside of time and space, who is "wholly other," enter time and space to reveal himself and communicate to people? These are fascinating and fun intellectual pursuits. (It's even more fun to think about how God could become human—incarnation—and yet retain His deity, but that's a different conversation.)

It seems to me that the best way for God to be imminent and genuinely reveal himself and communicate to humans is if humans have a particular receptor for spiritual connection—a part of them that is specifically designed for and attuned to spiritual realities. The Bible teaches that despite our human oneness with creation as animals in the same sense as much of life on Earth, we are also unique in our spiritual nature and connection with God. The presence of a soul, or the fact that we are souls, would speak to that unique reality and capability.

Why does God need you to have a soul to connect with you?

Yeah, I get that, but I don't perceive the special creation of Adam and Eve to be necessary. God has a pattern of "choosing out from among." He chose Abraham out from among other Sumerians, he chose the Israelites out from among other nations to be his people, he chose Moses out from among the Jewish people, he chose the Levites out from among to be the priestly tribe, he chose profits out from a man to speak his message. I have no biblical or theological problem with Him choosing Adam and Eve out from among other humans so that he could reveal himself to and through them. But I respect your perspective as well.

It's funny, I did not enjoy Aronofsky's "Noah" at all. I winced and cringed through the whole movie and was just shaking my head by the end. I thoroughly enjoyed other Aronofsky movies, such as Pi, Black Swan, and Requiem for a Dream, but "Noah" left me nonplussed.

Very well said, and I largely agree, though I also believe in the special creation of Adam and Eve within the same time - it is God's revelation and creation of the soul which is of most importance.

I particularly enjoy Darren Aronofsky's portrayal of creation in Noah, and greatly appreciate the fair handling of the subject by him as an Atheist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMDWWDZ8ozE

Swamidass explains it in an interview:

"There’s been a lot of conflict about how science expresses its understanding of Adam and Eve. It has to do with misunderstanding the word ancestor. We can understand it in the genetic sense, meaning someone we get our DNA from. Or we can mean it in a genealogical sense, meaning someone whose lineage we descend from.

"Genetics works in a very nonintuitive way. For example, my parents are both equally 100 percent my genealogical ancestors, and the same is true with my grandparents and great-grandparents. But my parents are each only one half of my genetic ancestry; my grandparents are one quarter; my great-grandparents are one eighth. Genetic ancestry just dilutes to the point where the majority of our genealogical ancestors pass on no DNA.

"Why is that important? Scripture doesn’t tell us about genetic ancestry. It does, however, tell us about genealogical ancestry. Historically, we’ve believed that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of everyone. We can ask: Does this mean genetic ancestors or genealogical ancestors? Well, Scripture can’t possibly be talking about genetic ancestry. It has to be talking about genealogical ancestry.

"That recognition really opens up an immense amount of space for theology. As Christians, we’ve had a lot of anxiety over what science is telling us about Adam and Eve. But these conflicts are based on what science says about our genetic ancestors. If we focus on genealogical ancestors instead, there might be far less conflict than we first imagined."

There are some reviews of his book on this Amazon page if you care to read them: https://www.amazon.com/Genealogical-Adam-Eve-Surprising-Universal/dp/0830852638

> Dr. Joshua Swamidass has an interesting theory that a single couple in about 6000 BC are the genealogical ancestors of all living humans, but not genetic or biological ancestors.

What is the difference?

I think there are several reasons. Some Christians have been taught that it can't be both — you have to choose creation or evolution, God or science. I think it's a false dichotomy, obviously, but some Christians think that if you choose evolution you are saying God doesn't exist or that God didn't create. Secondly, some Christians have been taught that evolution is a Satanic tool used by atheists to prove that God doesn't exist. It's also a false claim, but some people have been taught that, and it is ingrained in them that evolution is of the devil. Third, some Christians have been told that evolution is false science — atheists trying to perpetrate a lie on the population.

There is a website (http://www.biologos.org) of Christian scientists who believe in evolution—some of the most accomplished and recognized scientists of the world, such as Dr. Francis Collins (Director of the human genome project and current director of the NIH) and Dr. Jennifer Wiseman (the astrophysicist in charge of the Hubble telescope). There are hundreds of them who write articles there, who are university professors, and who are well published in their fields.

why do so many christians not believe in evolution then?

just misinformed, i suppose?