What reaction do you have to any aspect of the information given in the paper?
"Taking Darwin Seriously" – Prof Neil Spurway

Perhaps the internet is not the best place for a discussion like this. I have not studied this paper in detail. But from a quick skim-read, the arguments presented in this paper still seem to present major problems for someone like myself who believes that the bible is inerrant. Within the first couple of sentences the author infers that the bible is radically inconsistent. I'm a Christian and for me a starting point would be that the bible will always have a higher authority than scientific consensus.

For me the problems of reconciling the scientific consensus with the bible seem very real. But the authority in this paper seems to rest with scientific consensus - a 'cosmic fall' is not considered to be a possibility because of fossil evidence, for example. But its the creation (or evolution) of human beings that concerns me most. If there is no such person as Adam made in the image of God, then much of the teaching in the New Testament appears to be seriously undermined.

It is good to see the number of contributors to the forum expanding. Clearly the discussion is taking place with people of different views. So much better for enriching the exchange of opinions. Having said that, perhaps the expressing of our own opinions is not the ultimate goals but, rather, being open to listen to different points of view. Long may that continue.
With that in mind, might I make a couple of open ended responses to Cameron's post above?
The first is with reference to the suggestion 'perhaps the internet is not the best place for a discussion like this'. I hope that it is! I struggle to think of a better means of exchanging views between interested parties. The key to understanding the point of course is in what is meant by the phrase 'like this'. If it is in the spirit of open enquiry and exchange of views then may God's spirit put wind in our sails! We should, and do, welcome Cameron's contribution.

The more important point I would like to raise is about the word 'inerrant' and its associated link with 'inerrancy of scripture'.
It is interesting to note that this phrase which seems to have emerged from The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (1975) states the meaning as " (Scripture) is without error in all its teaching". The question that arises of course is ' But what does it teach?' I suspect that millions who subscribe to the principle of inerrancy would disagree many times over on what it teaches. Hence the utter fragmentation of the church. So a belief in inerrancy doesn't end the discussion!

The website 'Theopedia' describes inerrancy as " the view that when all the facts are known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true" Again that leaves acres of space for discussion about what a 'correct interpretation' is.

With that in mind, it would be worth re-examining if Neil actually believes/claims the Bible is inconsistent. Or is he actually just pointing out that the two accounts don't match - an observation that no doubt has an interesting explanation 'when all the facts are known'?