Yes, this is an old posting … but the continued lack of action (which would be simple) spurs me on to ask why we are asking Atheists to represent the theist views of GAE?
They are notoriously bad when it comes to explaining “God guides evolution”.
Continuing the response from @DarrenG
Request for Comment on Provisional Changes to the Forum:
Everybody, not just atheists, is bad at this. Bet you can’t explain it, right? But of course in your world, atheists and nobody else are to blame for everything. Was @DarrenG even talking about atheists there?
The answer is that this forum is not a one-minded attempt to promote GAE. It’s a place to discuss all questions of origins and the relationship of religion to science.
So atheists here are not being asked to represent GAE, in fact, no one is. GAE is merely an example of the Peaceful Science approach of trying to reconcile those who disagree with the findings of modern science. You can agree with this approach and not with GAE.
Please note that I’m making these comments as a member and not a moderator of this forum. I’m still figuring things out so don’t take my comments on the purpose of the forum as absolute truth.
With respect to all those who believe that God guided evolution, it’s not a scientific question. Therefore, everyone is equally bad at explaining how “God guides evolution” in a scientific context.
Now in a religious context, atheists may or may not be well equipped to explain how God conducts divine business. Many atheists are very knowledgeable of their former religion, and could probably do good job of it. It also true that many atheists might take the opportunity to dunk on religion. 
Such questions probably ought to be directed to people of similar faith.
A question:
Does George’s OP “address” DarrenG’s Complaint, or simply provide a further example of what Darren was complaining about?
Darren’s post makes no mention of atheists, GAE or “God guides evolution”. It is rather complaining about “adversarial tribalism”, “scor[ing] ‘points’ off the opposing team” and “throw[ing] stones”. I don’t think it is too far-fetched to see George’s near ubiquitous theme of ‘blame the atheists’ as being covered by such complaints.
Agreed. So how do we get the resident scientists at PS.org to stop treating the central implication of GAE as a science topic?
When i first returned here, many weeks ago, everybody and their man servants explored the manifold delights and complexities of science. I confess I found it quite disorienting.
But then I remembered that “G.enealogical A.dam & E.ve” was about how the study of birth pedigrees could be applied to the theology of human creation.
This list isnt short of Evolutionary scientists. What this list appears to be short of is pro-Evolution theologians.
Thoughts?
Who is doing that? I haven’t seen a single person here claim that GAE is falsifiable, let alone falsified, by scientific evidence.
Anybody looking for such examples can use these search results. I went back 18 months, and couldn’t find any examples.
No one ever asked me that. I’m feeling sad and left out.
I agree with you. In fact it seems that
we all take for granted that the GAE is established truth, when we spend any time thinking about it. But maybe the GAE is more ignored than anything else.
The lingering issue is how did a group designed to promote the theology of GAE, and the building of trust between Creationist and Evolutionist Christians, become a haven for polarizing disputation between I.D. and Atheist factions?
I have, sort of. The idea that an adult human being can suddenly spring into existence out of dirt is contradicted by everything science tells us about how humans come into existence. And also about what can be done with dirt.
… we all take for granted that the GAE is established truth …
This statement is false. The GAE is, by design, unfalsifiable, not “established truth”.
The lingering issue is how did a group designed to promote the theology of GAE, and the building of trust between Creationist and Evolutionist Christians, become a haven for polarizing disputation between I.D. and Atheist factions?
Likewise false. This site’s Mission and Values make no mention of promotion of GAE, Creationism or Evolution.
It does seem dubious. If Adam was made from dirt, why do we have so little silicon?
I stand corrected. At least one person claims that the GAE is scientifically falsifiable.
If you a referring to me, I was talking about the central claim in GAE, that it is possible for all living people by the time of Christ to have been genealogically descended from Adam, without leaving evidence of it – not about the creation out of dirt of Adam.
As to the latter, it is possible that God used special, low silicon dirt, or that the result was Adam plus a small pile of sand. 
OK, I agree that the claim we are all genealogically descended from any specific person in the remote past likely cannot be falsified with the data available to us. I will still say that is not the same thing as it being unfalsifiable in principle. For instance, if one will excuse the pedantry, were we to find the fossil of an hominid who died at age 7, we can be certain that it was not our geneaological ancestor.
That isn’t even what the GAE is about. Again, any person alive today is very likely to be descended from almost everyone who was alive in the remote past, provided that ancient person managed to have children at all. The hypothetical Adam is not special in that respect. The GAE claim isn’t about falsification but about probability. And not “did Adam exist” but “if he existed, would everyone be descended from him”.
It was a miracle, of course.
(Seriously speaking, I do find it interesting that silicon makes up about 28% of mineral soil by weight.)
No surprise, since the inorganic base is mostly silicates of one sort or another.
That’s true but @Faizal_Ali knows this well, better than most commenters here at PS. He wrote one of the best, clearest reviews of GAE and it’s included on the main GAE page here.