Sure, Rohde did the core of the scientific work. Rohde’s article, however, doesn’t mention Adam at all. Additionally, theologians normally don’t read journal articles in Nature. And Kendall’s work was done in the late 19th century, and before you mentioned it, I’ve never heard about it in the context of this debate. Digging up an old theological idea, connecting it with updated science, and rewriting it into a paper that situates it in contemporary debate is commonly done. Josh’s work isn’t purely scientific, nor theological - the originality lies in integrating the two, which is what PSCF articles are about.
In any case, I don’t think it’s meaningful to debate about how much originality was in Josh’s work. After all, we’re not arguing about whether Josh deserves some sort of prize. The point is that Josh is the one who has propelled GAE from merely being a reasonable suggestion, occasionally put forward, to one which interacts with the latest biblical, theological, and scientific data and is discussed as a “fifth option” in the debate. And if you’ve read the draft of the upcoming GAE book, he does way more than what Kendall, Opderbeck, or others have done.
(Emphasis mine)
Epistemology is a matter of choice. Epistemology is what determines what are “objective facts” in the first place. Your way of framing the issue is philosophically naive, and unfortunately is common among TE/ECs in the discussion.
To start with, what are facts? Can you give a definition of what that word means?
That’s presupposing an all-encompassing Popperian methodology which is far from being obviously the only choice one can make, and certainly not one which most theologians would make. (To start with, many atheists would completely dispose of the idea of God based on precisely your statement here.) Your statement could be completely reasonable to fellow scientists who commonly adopt that methodology, but it will fall on many deaf ears in the world of theology.
Certainly if your wish is to continue using Biologos’ strategy, that is your choice. Biologos has been around for over a decade and accomplished many things. But Biologos’ approach also has some weaknesses. Some evangelicals feel that a naive, scientistic approach to theology like yours is unsatisfactory. PS is trying to do different things.