On January 21, 2020, I emailed BioLogos with this concern:
Breaking the policy that Dr. Haarsma laid out in a recent article, a key article of historical significance was silently deleted from the website, without notice or explanation. Why was policy broken? Deleted: Does Genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple? This article should be kept online with a note stating that it has been retracted, the date of retraction, and why.
October 20, 2020, Dr. Deborah Haarsma responded:
Remember that the BioLogos website is not a scientific journal. Like other popular blog sites, we routinely delete and update articles for a wide variety of reasons without retraction notices. Now that the committee’s work is done, we will be having an external expert review/rewrite the population genetics articles to ensure correctness on all points, and will then consult Ard and others on whether any retraction notice is warranted.
I responded back:
I would like more information about the the article from 2010 that was stealth deleted in January, 2020. Although I was the first qualified scientist to critique this article, back in 2018, several scientists have since stated publicly and privately that this article should be put back online with a note explaining the problems that have been identified with its scientific claims. So, why is additional review required?
For this specific article, can you please clarify who the external reviewer is? How will my scientific objections be communicated to this reviewer? What is the timeline you expect to hear back from him/her and take action on his/her recommendations?
November 2, 2020, Dwight Baker, the current chairman of the board wrote back,
BioLogos considers past cases closed. The board accepted the committee recommendations it will monitor their implementation. Based on specific board direction, BioLogos will not consult with you on the details of these recommendations or any former publication.
I’m very concerned by the lack of transparency here. It has been known among biologists at BioLogos that this article was in serious error for years now. I see no sensible reason for leaving my questions unanswered. Even if this matter is closed for BioLogos, it seems open for many others.