The link to a new PuffHo piece by (Formerly Uncle) Karl Giberson,”Fundamentalists think that science is atheism,” came from reader Alan, who commented: “[Karl’s] still trying to deal with Adam & Eve, poor guy.” And indeed, besides flogging Giberson’s new book, Saving the Original Sinner: How Christians Have Used the Bible’s First Man to Oppress, Inspire, and Make Sense of the World, the article bemoans the Christian insistence that Adam and Eve were real folks.

First, the book, published June 9 by Beacon Press. Here’s its Amazon blurb:

In Saving the Original Sinner, Giberson tells the story of the evolution of the idea of Adam and explores how, over the centuries, we have created Adam in our own image to explain and justify our behavior. Giberson shows how the narrative of the Fall has influenced Western ideas about sexuality, gender, and race, and he argues that ongoing attempts to preserve the biblical story of creation in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary is contributing to the intellectual isolation of many Christians, particularly evangelicals—even as they continue to wield significant political power in the United States.

And we all know the problem—or you would if you read pp. 124-131 of FvF. In brief, population genetics tells us that, over the last million years or so, the “effective” size of the human species (an underestimate of the true census size) was on the order of 12,500 individuals, with about 10,000 of those remaining in Africa and the other 2500 bravely venturing out of that continent, their descendants eventually populating the Earth. I need not point out that 12,500 does not equal two, so Adam and Eve couldn’t be the ancestors of all humanity. Nor could the eight people on Noah’s Ark.

This disparity has caused considerable theological kerfuffle, and I detail the various solutions—none of them satisfactory—in my book. Let me just say that the official position of the Vatican is that Adam and Eve really were the historical ancestors of all living humans, so the Catholic Church, on this issue as on many others, is resolutely opposed to science.

Before Giberson mentions this issue, though, he takes a lick at atheists:

Equating science with atheism is one of the most dangerous byproducts of America’s culture wars. This strange polarization portends disaster, as the country divides into factions that cannot find common ground on the way the world operates. And it goes without saying that there will be no agreement on what should be done when scientifically significant issues need political action.

It’s not a strange polarization at all, for atheism—at least the refusal to accept gods for which there’s no evidence—is a logical outgrowth of science, and explains (at least to me) why, compared to Americans as a whole, scientists are so much more atheistic. If your career depends on establishing your confidence in a phenomenon proportional to the degree of evidence supporting it, then God is a no-go. The climate of doubt that is endemic—and essential—to the scientific enterprise is a true disaster for religion. Religious people know this, and that largely explains the many ways they attack science.

At any rate, Giberson then recognizes the Big Problem: if Adam and Eve weren’t real, then neither was Original Sin, and if that’s the case then Jesus died for nothing—or for some obscure metaphor! Christians know this, and thus aren’t buying the view that Adam and Eve were simply—as Giberson’s former BioLogos pal Peter Enns claims—a Metaphorical Couple. Karl’s Lament:

Many Christians, unfortunately believe their faith requires a “first man” who sinned and brought trouble on the world (feminists can thank two millennia of patriarchy for getting the “first woman” off the hook). The central Christian theme is “Creation-Fall-Redemption”: God creates a perfect world; Adam “falls” by sinning, wrecks everything, and God curses the creation with death and suffering; and Christ redeems the world. In this picture Adam and Christ function as symmetrical “bookends”: Adam breaks everything and Christ fixes it.

. . .The conclusion is clear: The couple described in the opening pages of the Bible never existed — and thus could not have precipitated the disaster known as “The Fall.”

Without Adam, the traditional formula that has long defined Christianity must be reinvented and many Christians are convinced that this is impossible. Millions of Americans would prefer to reject science, rather than bid farewell to the first man: “The denial of an historical Adam and Eve as the first parents of all humanity and the solitary first human pair,” warns the influential and widely followed Southern Baptist theologian Al Mohler, “severs the link between Adam and Christ which is so crucial to the Gospel.”

Is there a solution? I don’t see one, for the redemptive effect of Jesus is a non-negotiable tenet of many Christians’ beliefs. Karl is also pessimistic, though he falsely imputes the problem to atheism:

But the sad reality is that this view runs through much of evangelical Christianity in America. It has taken up residence in the GOP, where denying various sciences — evolution, geology, climate science — has become a de facto requirement for election. Many evangelical colleges have it in their faith statement. Public school teachers find themselves embroiled in controversy simply teaching the material in the Biology text. Ken Ham’s entire Answers in Genesis project is based on it. The starting point for so many Christian has become the absolute truth of a particular interpretation of the Genesis creation story. And any alternative viewpoint is now understood to be a “compromise with atheists.”

Sorry, Karl, but it’s not a “compromise with atheists,” but a compromise with fact. Even if all scientists were believers, that wouldn’t make evangelical Christians accept the mythological status of Adam and Eve one whit more. And so the evangelicals will reject the science (after all, 64% of Americans averred that they’d reject a scientific fact if it contravened their faith, something that has nothing to do with atheism), while the Sophisticated Theologians™, like Enns, will continue to confect compromises that their evangelical brethren reject out of hand.

Come on, Karl—come over to the Dark Side. All you have to do is abandon One Myth More. After all, Jesus’s resurrection and virgin birth also contravene the laws of physics and biology.