This article by Jeff Hardin (chairman of the board) was just posted at BioLogos Evangelicals, the Bible, and human origins - Articles - BioLogos.
For the first time ever, BioLogos mentioned my book on their blog. Until now, they largely avoided mentioning my work. For example, they’ve never responded to or mentioned any of the key articles that are the basis of the book: (1) In Defense of Tim Keller, (2) https://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-rapprochement/, and (3) https://asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF3-18Swamidass.pdf.
Before we get too excited, they fail to state its premise. They even misread the title of the book.
Yes, they got the title of the book wrong. Unfortunately, this is symbolic of a pattern. Both the article (and the attached document) misrepresent my work, failing to engage (or even state) my central thesis. Just to be entirely clear, let me restate it:
The traditional de novo view of human origins is entirely consistent with evolutionary science, so we should make space for it. Making space for it is good for science, society, and the Church.
Deborah disagrees with my central thesis and has not made space for the traditional de novo view. Instead, she confronted Keller with incorrect science, and then she covered it up (BioLogos Edits Their Response to Keller). After nearly 3 years, The BioLogos Statement on Adam and Eve still “dismisses” the traditional de novo account.
Looking to the future, I hope that BioLogos is careful to engage my actual thesis.
BioLogos intends to review the book. I hope they change their public stance, or explain why they disagree. Either way, I want to know why they have publicly disagreed with this thesis over the last 2.5 years. I also look forward to hearing, at long last, their response to my defense of Tim Keller (In Defense of Tim Keller). Deborah’s confrontation of Keller is a central story in the book. She never apologized, and states that she did nothing wrong. I want to understand why Haarsma maintains she did nothing wrong, and why she does not want to make space for the traditional de novo view.
This posting from BioLogos is important for one last reason, unrelated to my book. Though hidden from view, this is the first article that has ever been published at BioLogos that acknowledges (albeit indirectly) the errors in Denis Venema’s Adam and the Genome. Hardin explains,
In that article, from 1.5 years ago, Hardin endorses my critique of Venema’s work here: Heliocentric Certainty Against a Bottleneck of Two?. This raises all sorts of questions. In particular, why did it take 1.5 years to make this paper public? Why are the mistakes in Adam and the Genome unmentioned in the summary? Why have no critiques of Venema’s work been permitted on the BioLogos blog?
Of course, the fact that BioLogos, for the first time, intends to address my work directly is encouraging. Perhaps very soon we will have answers to these questions and more. I look forward to seeing the conversation move forward.