smile broader than to see a good mathematical proof that they have been wrong. But on the more important theological point, I find the attempt to use Adam as a *causal* explanation for the sins of each subsequent person very dubious. As a causal explanation for *death* -- that's a different matter. In fact, that is all that Genesis said that Adam *was* responsible for -- the fact that we all die, not that we all sin or have some special proclivity for sin. Genesis never sticks poor Adam with the blame for that. A quick one. That Eastern orthodoxy has moved isn't in doubt -- but if so it means it has moved away from a doctrine dating back into the first millennium in the East, not a johnny-come-lately Roman/Reformed perversion. I'm no Orthodox, but the writer I linked to puts the sea-change in Orthodoxy to a couple of influential leaders in the 20th century (primarily Patriarch Romanides and Metropolitan Anthony), apparently constituting an Orthodox equivalent to the 19th century upsurge in Protestant liberalism. They taught that Orthodoxy had for 1500 years been in bondage to Western Catholic thinking -- in other words, they were revisionists with an agenda. When I read what those in the science-faith discussion say approvingly about Irenaeus v Augustine, etc it's clear this new strand is what they mean by "Orthodoxy", which has repositioned those authors to suit the new theology (eg to claim falsely that Irenaeus did not teach that sin is inherited