The article is interesting but it uses the made-up word Christadelphia a lot, instead of Christadelphians, which is off-putting when reading. Is this a new trend? It is like calling people who walk pedestria. Or people who eat only vegetables vegetaria. What do you think?

Hi David, Thanks for writing — your counter-examples are delightful. "Christadelphians" was itself coined in mid-19th century America, in response to conscription requirements during the US Civil War. So the word is younger than you might think, and was no less contrived at birth. I'll admit "Christadelphia" struck me as odd the first time I encountered it too. But I confess to now using the term myself. I do that because it's useful — useful for the same reasons that "America", "American", and "Americans" are distinct and useful. "Christadelphia" gives me a singular noun for our community. What's more, it lets me consider the community as an abstracted intellectual or cultural entity, or even idiomatically locate it in space relative to other abstractions. The term seems pretty well established at this point — and I think that's because it fills a gap that genuinely needed filling.

Good morning My wife was listening to this podcast and forwarded it to me. Listening to it brought back memories of growing up in a Christadelphian ecclesia in Auckland in the 1960s, and the prominence given to Whitcomb and Morris' book. . I note well Kate's cognitive dissonance as she went into her studies of biology- presumably continuing with these and eventually graduating. I myself studied geology, and I well recall the cognitive dissonance- on one hand holding the standard young earth views on Sundays, but at University being fully convinced by the evidence- from multiple subdisciplines within the geological sciences- of the reality of the stratigraphic record, the evidence of palaeoecology, and the proofs of radiometric dating.It was like holding two separate truths, a Sunday set and a weekday set. Ultimately I did graduate in geology M.Sc.,1982). As for evolution, the ultimate proof has been with the discovery and analysis of genomics, and the inherited genetic characteristics that validate the tree of life. Truth is singular, and not divided. If God made the earth and heavens then the evidence written into its fabric and into the fabric of life, is proof of His handiwork. To deny such evidence in an effort to sustain a literal scientific reading of an ancient text taken out of genre and context, is, frankly, to call God a liar. Over many years, I have come to realise that the Bible is NOT a scientific manual, but is a relationship text: "able to make us wise to SALVATION". "profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in RIGHTEOUSNESS so that we may be complete and fully furnished to GOOD WORKS"..Arguments about the past are far less relevant to salvation, than the formation in our own lives of a Kingdom character. I do not know Kate Curtis, but I can identify with the same struggles of cognitive dissonance in the late 1960s and during my university studies in the late 1970s. Congratulations to Sister Kate for evaluating the evidence and thinking for herself, Often such thoughts are kept to oneself rather than create dissension over an issue that, in the end, is largely irrelevant to our salvation. As Pilate said "What is truth" As John Thomas allegedly said "Truth is dangerous only to error" If we declare that we hold the truth on a matter but are unknowingly in error, then any truth which challenges that error is seen as something dangerous. The Pharisees crucified Christ for exactly that reason. With love in Christ Bro Roger Evans Waitakere ecclesia, Auckland, New Zealand

Hi Kate, Thanks for your article which acknowledges the fact that contrary to what one would infer if reading and viewing only fundamentalist Christadelphian material, YEC is not and has not been the orthodox poasition. I accept the fact of evolution, a process that took around fourteen years from when a faith crisis precipitated by attending university to study engineering (I was an omnivorous reader and read well outside the engineering curriculum) caused me to abandon YEC to the turn of the century shortly before studying medicine as a mature-age student. I find that since accepting the reality of an ancient earth with a long evolutionary history of life my faith has been quite stronger since I no longer have to constantly explain away the considerable evidence for evolution, something that my medical studies have shown abounds just in human genetics. Salvation is of course independent of our understanding of reality, and there will be believers in the kingdom who lived before modern science who would be geocentrists, young earthers, or even flat-earthers (the earliest recognition of a spherical earth came around the 5th century BCE). However, just the explosion of knowledge from the science of genomics in the last quarter-century has frankly made evolution denialism impossible. Coming to terms with this reality and recognising that it does not undermind our belief in the reality of the resurrection is something that thankfully is happening organically, as articles like yours are indicating.