Without a literal Fall, there is no need for Jesus and redemption (Talk.Origins)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Without a literal Fall, there is no need for redemption and thus no need for Jesus or Christianity.
Source: Morris, Henry M. 1998. The fall, the curse, and evolution. Back to Genesis 112 (Apr.).
Talk.Origins attempts to interpret the teachings of the Bible - the very book at which Talk.Origins scoffs - regarding the nature of sin and Christ's act of redemption on the cross and fails to explain the nature of sin or Christ's death accurately.
In addition, this is not the main focus of what Henry Morris was trying to say. What he was trying to say is that acceptance of evolution compromises the purpose of Christ's redemption. In accepting evolution and attempting to fit the Bible around it, a theistic evolutionist ends up believing that God used suffering and death (as exampled in the tumor found of a T-Rex) to advance animals to men. In other words, death is no longer the penalty for sin, but merely a part of creation. However, according to the Bible sin and death are the opposite of good. Thus, the Bible and evolution contradict one another.
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. It is sin in general, and not merely one particular instance of sin, that makes redemption necessary. If you can find any sin in the world, then the claim is baseless. Proof of this is given by the fact that many Christians feel the need for redemption but do not believe in a literal Fall.
The problem with that is if sin is something inherent in our world, a created part of our world, then God clearly intended for us to be in our sins. If God created us with sin, then His creation is not "good" (Genesis 1, Genesis 2). There is no need for redemption, because God intended for us to be in our sins. If God intended for us to be in our sins, then obviously He doesn't intend the opposite - that we should be out of our sins! However, this is not true (thankfully).
As it truly is, God created a perfect world, for He said it was very good, and Adam's disobedience marked the beginning of sin. We are born into a nature damaged by sin and thus predisposed to sin (Psalm 51:5, Exodus 20:5, etc.). God hates sin (the wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23), and it is impossible for man alone to purify himself of his sins. God instituted methods of blood sacrifice for the atonement of sins (since blood is equated to life), but animal blood only sanctifies the offerer so that he is outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God (Hebrews 9:13-14)?
It is simply not enough that sin exists. We must understand why sin exists, is it the product of a malignant, twisted god, or the opposition to the wishes of a benevolent, loving God?
2. This claim implies that sin and redemption are about things that happened thousands of years ago, not about anything happening to us today. It makes religion less relevant to people's lives.
How is that so? If people are being born to a sinful nature, separated from God, this is the most relevant thing to our lives. People are living in constant rebellion against God, adopting such teachings as evolution to defy the purpose set forth by God for them (2 Timothy 4:3, 2 Peter 3:3-7). This is why we preach the gospels, so that those who have not heard may hear, and so thus end their rebellion and come to live in the eternal peace and eternal love of the Lord our eternal God.
3. Origins are not determined by our personal decisions of what religion to follow.
First off, this claim doesn't have anything to do with origins. But since this point is being discussed, our ideas of origins can be influenced by our philosophical bias, for instance the evolutionist believes that he descended from apes because he feels that this interpretation is the most consistent with his worldview and with observed facts (the fact that animals are buried in a certain order). The creationist, however, recognizes an entirely different origin because he feels that this interpretation is the most consistent with his worldview and with observed facts.