Kathryn, if you are reading this. Thank you for your post. I appreciate you sharing your personal views on Adam, and also for referencing my work. This is the first article at BioLogos in 2018 acknowledging a Genealogical Adam, and you are acknowledging that there is no evidence against the de novo creation of Adam. That is great. Regarding your article,
It is encouraging that it:
- acknowledges that there is no evidence against (or for) the de novo creation of Adam.
- kindly and encouragingly references me.
It is discouraging that it:
- incorrectly describes my model.
- spends so much time making a theological case against traditional theology.
- insists on eisegesis into “human” and “sole-progenitor”
- attributes scientifically false claims to my work.
I’m saddened that so much effort was spent arguing against a straw man version of traditional theology. You do not have to affirm traditional theology, but there is no reason to define yourself against it. I’m sure this was accidental, but it is unfortunate. The fact that BioLogos has avoided all mention of a Genealogical Adam, makes the mistakes made here more of a problem. In particular, scientifically false claims are attributed to me, citing my work. That is unfortunate, and puts me in the difficult situation of having to correct the record.
Of course, I wish I could respond directly to you on the BioLogos pages, but at the moment I’m banned from the forums for very unclear reasons. I suppose that this has been a challenging time for BioLogos as they catch up on the science here. I would hope that you would put a high priority on fixing the errors in your article, especially as they pertain to me.