The historicity of Adam?

Thus the man who wants to “hold firmly the historicity of the story of Adam” is doing something quite different from what he thinks he is doing. He thinks he is preserving the faith of his fathers; in reality he is doing something quite different; he is trying to include in the modern picture of Time and Space, a process which belongs to a quite different picture of Time and Space, which he cannot possibly reproduce. Thus he is not “conservative”, but quixotic and reactionary.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 48

<idle musing>
OK, I wouldn't be so harsh as Brunner! But, he has a very valid point, which is frequently lost in the discussion. The Scriptures were written with a very different understanding of what the cosmos looks like than what we have today. To try to turn the Bible into a science book is wrong-headed and misleading—to say nothing of potentially opening the door to a loss of faith for some who discover that scientific discoveries have a solid foundation in the data—a point he brought up in the post I published a day or two ago.
</idle musing>