BioLogos back in 2017 on the Genealogical Adam and Eve


I’m not sure why… but I am more than a year late reading Jeff Hardin’s fulsome and gracious discussion of your work!

On Geniality and Genealogy

Jeff HardinBy Jeff Hardin on November 4, 2017

"This week we celebrated the 500th anniversary of one of the great, pivotal periods in the history of God’s people: The Protestant Reformation. As a former German major in college, I’ve had the privilege of reading original works by one of the Reformation’s chief – although at times reluctant – architects,
“… Josh’s work is based on science that goes back some years, including an influential paper in the journal Nature in 2004[i]; I and others have reviewed these and other references and confirm these scientific points. [For a popular-level presentation of the issues and how genealogical science works, please see this decidedly non-theological piece; you may not know it, but you are likely related to royalty!]. Josh now has a more extensively referenced version of this work in press with our friends at the American Scientific Affiliation, in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith , and an updated [overview blog post ( on his own site, which I encourage you to read for additional details.”

“Josh rightly reminds us to use caution in using the term “human” in scientific claims; the ambiguity and theological weight of the term “human” can create confusion about what science does and does not say. He also notes that genealogical science allows a scenario in which Adam and Eve were miraculously created, de novo ; if their descendants interbred with a larger population who were created in an evolutionary process, such a scenario can be consistent with the findings of genetic science.”

“In such a scenario, we would still share ancestry with the great apes, and our ancestors would still arise as a population that never dipped down to a single couple, evidence BioLogos presents regularly, see here and here. Understanding how such statements can all be true at the same time requires some hard thinking about genetics and genealogy!”

“Josh’s main goal was to make a scientific point; he left open the theological implications raised. When Dennis was asked to respond to Josh’s Sapientia piece, however, he commented on those potential theological implications. Dennis’ questions arose from particular ways of construing important theological ideas, such as the Imago Dei (image of God), the transmission of original sin, and other fundamental theological categories.”

“Dennis has told me recently he has apologized to Josh for his blunt and forceful response and is sorry that he didn’t use more measured language. With Josh’s recent blog post, Dennis now recognizes that Josh was not advocating for a particular theological construal. All of this was unfortunate, because Josh’s genealogical insights are scientific . Just as in so many other areas at BioLogos, there are multiple ways that science, including genealogical science, and theology can be brought into dialogue. We look forward to continued thinking about these things together.”
[End of Quoted Text]

If this came out even before the start of 2018, I’m a little surprised that Jeff’s tone didn’t accomplish more in terms of building some peaceful bridges between BioLogos and PeacefulScience.Org.

But in the end, I do think is in a unique position to draw less hostile interest from various YEC factions. BioLogos will have to do some soul searching I suppose. As few YECs as there are willing to accept God-Guided-Evolution … there are even fewer YECs ready to accept “figurative Adam and Eve”… and yet as best as I can tell, this is still the preferred “entry point” by BioLogos supporters and writers.


Yup they acknowledged I was correct, but still:

  1. Left their belief statement unchanged, continuing to take an anti-traditional view because the traditional view was ruled out.

  2. Took 17 months to correct their rebuke of Keller with a “minor edit”.

  3. Blacklisted me entirely, kicking me of the forum and more.

So yes, very genial indeed. It is not, however, an olive branch, nor is it a peace offering. I wish it was.

Of note, Dennis never did apologize to me, and quickly retracted this public apology too.

So… if it was no olive branch … nor a peace offering… we are left with only one other choice:

It was … the Monkey’s Paw!

but with dancing!

I still struggle to understand why they turned on me so quickly. It is going to be really awkward when my book comes out.

1 Like

I should also add that PS did not exist back then. I was still under the false illusion that some conversation would enable to clear up the misunderstanding.

Then the Bugg-Venema exchange happened, and it got even worse. They really really don’t like me right now, or so it seems.

And if not for Brad … I would have turned on you as well… but he put together the perfect statement explaining the view you were exploring.

Up to then, Brad usually lost me at “George, you just don’t …”

I’m glad @Brad_Kramer was helpful for you, and I’m sure he was caught in the middle. Too bad he had to leave BioLogos. What a mess that was, almost exactly 2 years ago. Haarsma has not had a conversation with me since she kicked me out for… being right?

It’s fine though. Let it go. Bygones by bygones I suppose.


This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.