A much better title than Joshua’s current barn door aiming name: “the science of Adam”.
And then presumably “evolutionary science” gets split into almost as many natural & cultural branches as “theologies of Adam” (e.g. western/eastern, branches of Christianity or Islam, etc.)? But that would at least add some specification & clearer sense of limit & scope. People don’t know what “the science of Adam” means, traditionally or not & thus Joshua might appear to be trying to craft a new ‘scientific’ field on his own that BioLogos wouldn’t allow under its editorial direction.
Probably pluralising to refer to “evolutionary sciences” then would make sense too, since claiming unified, united universal evolutionary theories (e.g. Universal Darwinism) can’t happen unchallenged nowadays either. This it seems is what you mean by “how to adjust the language to be more clear.” Am I being clear to & with you in my observations & questions, Dr. Joshua?
Barn doors are easy to hit, but so what? Nobody will care. Genealogical ‘science’ confessed by un-tenured young biologists & geneticists is actually not too uncommon in the history of the USA’s ‘creationist’ movement. That’s where the genealogical argument comes from, after all, dressed as methodologically rigorous natural science. Obviously you’re not talking about this creationist stuff to your geneticist colleagues all that often, but rather to ‘science & religion’ people, right?
At the end of the day, where is the novelty here? Is it just in disagreeing with BioLogos after having been employed/sanctioned by them & then/now publicly forcing/persuading them to change their language “to be more clear”? Roman Catholic teachings on evolution, creation, Adam & Eve have already been for many years where you are trying to be now, it would seem. So it’s really a largely social argument involved for your immediate surroundings, rather than a globally scientific one.