BioLogos Podcast on Adam and Eve

Is any of this worth listening too?

I listened to it. Same old stuff.

Any highlights?

Yes, the end.

1 Like

It’s interesting how many people on that podcast are not in the BL camp, are quite connected to PS, and are endorsers or contributors to the GAE book.

WLC, @AJRoberts, @KenKeathley, Andrew Torrance

I think it is also striking that they link uncritically to several posts by Venema that we know now have some fairly large scientific errors.


Same old stuff from WLC, @AJRoberts, @KenKeathley, Venema and Torrance. All talk. No diseases cured, no one is helped, no one is saved. Just more flushing of JTF money down the toilet. If this is the present state of Christian thought, it’s over.

1 Like

Yeah, disappointing how they don’t distance themselves from Venema’s erroneous interpretations of the data.

And I’m sympathetic to @Patrick 's perspective too… Let’s move on to healing the nations! Leaning in with Hope


yes @AJRoberts I comment your work on educating everyone on the merits of vaccines. This is an exemplary way Christian organizations can help humanity.


Excellent article @AJRoberts.

1 Like

Thanks, Josh.

11 posts were split to a new topic: Comments on BioLogos Podcast on Adam and EVe

I didn’t get much out of it. I was hoping for more.

The idea of de novo Adam and Eve alongside an existing population was briefly mentioned as being possible, but they went into no detail about that option, and it was not one of the main ideas being discussed. They focused more on Adam and Eve as sole progenitors a really long time ago and Adam and Eve being literary. There was one other option I’m forgetting right now… That’s what I get for not commenting immediately after listening. :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m still trying to work out what I think about Genesis 1-11, but I didn’t find this episode to help me at all. :woman_shrugging: I lean toward Adam and Eve being historical, roughly around 6000 years ago, but I also think other people were around (via evolution). Whether Adam and Eve were born or created de novo, I could go either way (I don’t believe in “original sin” - all humans being guilty of Adam’s sin).

1 Like

At what time point in the podcast? That seems worth giving them some positive credit for at least mentioning.


Jim: “And for that point too then, isn’t it fair to say that science also couldn’t tell us whether God created two people de novo and put them in a population of other homo sapiens?”
Deborah: “Could be. Yep, that could have happened too.”

1 Like

It is great they volunteer this. It has taken us a long time to get here!

It tickles my memory that Applegate said something to this effect a year ago or more. I’ll see if I can find it.

1 Like

Yes she did. It was about 1.5 years ago, in June of 2018 I believe. She also likened it to Last Thursday-ism. To her credit, she kindly removed that when asked.

So they are making reference to the possibility of de novo creation of AE, averaging now about one sentence per year now. They have been careful to keep it out of their common questions page on Adam and Eve, but they did remove the statement directly against it.

Once per year is better than never!

1 Like

2 posts were split to a new topic: Why is the de novo creation of Adam and Eve important?

1 Like

@AJRoberts excellent article. RTB is correct to call out Biologos on recent results of genomics of ancient fossils.

Question: Does RTB require A&E to be homo sapien? Is Homo Erectus and the ten or so species of genus Homo from 1.8 mya to around 40,000 years ago excluded from being the historical A&E? If so, why?