Obviously we're discussion the veracity of the Genesis stories, taking them literally. Do you believe the world is only 6000 years old? Do you believe that God created man wholly formed in the Garden of Eden then created Eve out of his rib? Who did their sons marry?
I believe that the story of the Garden of Eden was metaphorical.
I believe that the earth is about 4.5 million years old, give or take,
and yes, I believe that God created mankind in His image. I'm not going to dictate to Him HOW He did that, however.
My beliefs regarding this are irrelevant, however. The OP wasn't clear. "Critical Thinking" as a concept can be used for more than simply establishing the factual nature of a narration. Indeed, I don't think that there IS such a thing, push come to shove.
No human looks at the same event and then describes it in the same way. Eye witness testimony is different from every observer. As an English, English literature major and a teacher, I deal with words and the way people report things, and tell stories, all the time. I have spent, too, many hours doing technical writing for people who are publishing scientific papers. The use of one word here and another there can change a great deal in the intention of the writer and the perception of the reader....and scripture, whether it is the Bible or something else, is written by PEOPLE.
Perhaps one can depend upon mathematical equations to be uniform and uniformally understandable, but then I have to remember that Einstein did most of his thinking with thought experiments that he described, first, in WORDS, and only when he solidified those concepts in his mind, did he boil them down to equations.
Which have to be explained to the rest of us in words. We all can follow the story of the two guys and the train, or the man in the elevator...but we tend to be stopped cold at E=Mc2 (OK, I don't know how to insert the superscript '2'..sorry). Or at least, I do.
On the other hand, when I read his thought experiments, I GET it.
The biblical writers wrote in parables and analogies a LOT. Jesus used them extensively...but nobody is worried about whether the 'good Samaritan' had a name and actually existed. The point was the lesson of the story, not whether there really was an injured man on the side of the road aided by this Samaritan.
Critical thinking skills are necessary when examining these things from the angle of 'what is this story teaching?" The lesson isn't destroyed if the story is not factual.
So, when someone wonders about Balaam's donkey or Onan's 'minor infraction' (and I still have to shake my head over that 'minor infraction' thing) I have to ask for clarification. Is it about whether the donkey talked or there was a man named Onan?
Or is it about the lesson taught in those two stories, factual or not?
If the stories are not fact, does that mean that their morals/lessons are not valuable, or even somehow disproved?
(shrug)
People who examine literature do critical thinking ALL the time. They sometimes even get university degrees and get paid good money for doing so.
All I wanted to know is...in what manner is 'critical thinking' being used?
Because if someone decides that these stories are not literal, are the stories then not worth examining for their lessons?
If someone does think that they are literal, does any examination by them OF those stories automatically become suspect, because of course they can't think critically about anything?
Just asking for clarification here, is all.