The simple answer stumpy is that we have accepted the other tenets of Christianity for various reasons and have come to the conclusion that if we accept Christianity we must accept all of it.
As I'm seeing it, the above could (and actually often is) phrased as:
The simple answer stumpy is that we have accepted other parts of the Bible for various reasons and have come to the conclusion that if we accept part of the Bible we must accept all of the Bible.
I find the all or nothing perspective of any area to be most troubling. In the case of the Bible, it is a collection of stories, selected and edited by man. It is divided into two major distinct parts (Old and New Testaments). Parts are presented as history while other parts are presented as spiritual teachings.
Why can't part of the Bible be valid information while other parts are erroneous? I say the Genesis creation story, especially if taken as precise and literal, is erroneous or at least flawed information. It badly conflicts with the information that can be seen in the creation itself.
Are you to believe what you can see in the real world or someones fanciful story about that real world?
Moose
™ Version 4.2