The first thing to say is that belatedly making subtle changes to correct the core errors of the piece, and terming it “minor editing,” having refused to do so for nearly two years, is a little … disingenuous . Sadly, BioLogos seems to have a long history of affirming its orthodoxy without actually retracting its former problematic positions.
Then again, the only real point of the Haarsma piece appears to have been to tut-tut at Tim Keller’s affirmation of special creation in the face of the clear findings of science that “it couldn’t have happened.” But one of their new “minor edits” more or less demolishes that main argument by saying it is possible, but only given a theory like Genealogical Adam, involving interbreeding with an existing race, which for all we know Keller supports:
An early couple could have been created miraculously, but their descendants must have interbred with the surrounding population (e.g. here and here).
I pass over the fact that creation is not “miraculous”, but … well, creative. But if Adam and Eve’s creation is now admittedly possible, what exactly is the problem with Keller’s position? Haarsma appears to be simply agreeing with him.
Keep conversation respectful. BioLogos is doing the best it knows how, and it is a good thing that they made any change at all this. On balance, this is a positive step forward in the origins conversation, not an opportunity to stick it to them.
It also seems that @gbrooks9 has started a discussion thread at BioLogos on this very topic: An assessment of the Re-Assessment of Keller - Open Forum - The BioLogos Forum. It will be important and interesting to see how they respond.