@DeborahHaarsma thank you so much for this irenic and helpful response to @John_Rood. @BradKramer thank you for liking his post.
I am hopeful it marks a real turning point in the conversation. I want to affirm and endorse some of things most important things said here.
As our history expert Ted Davis mentioned to me in a recent email, common ancestry and separate de novo creation have nearly always been seen as contradictory ideas. So, this idea is new to all of us; we’re getting up to speed on the picture of a de novo Adam and Eve having descendants interbreed with other human-like creatures. Since it is so new, I wasn’t ready to highlight it in the response to the Moreland et al book, and merely used “genetic” to be specific about what is ruled out by scientific evidence.
@DeborahHaarsma, referencing @TedDavis here, is absolutely correct. It has always been thought that common descent is in conflict with de novo creation. The work at Peaceful Science is breaking new ground here. It is not just BioLogos that missed this, but just about everyone in the conversation. It will take time to process this and reconfigure.
Yes, I was describing the “traditional de novo view” in a way to distinguish it from other de novo views, and the key word there is “genetic.”
@DeborahHaarsma’s use of the term “sole-genetic progenitor” here does render this scenario incompatible with science. We have done work to show that a more ancient bottleneck might be possible, but the scenario she is pointing to here is only recent, and our work is not yet published.
I was describing the view that many Christians hold, that I grew up with, and that Wayne Grudem clearly holds (the inverse of his “twelve theistic evolution beliefs that conflict with the creation account”), in which Adam and Eve were not only created de novo from dust and rib, but recently, and as the sole genetic progenitors of all humans (i.e. no other human-like creatures for their descendants to interbreed with).
Very gently though, I would push back on this use of the word “traditional.”
Traditional interpretations of Genesis make no reference to sole-genetic progentiorship. DNA is a recent discovery, and whatever traditional interpretations refer to, it cannot be DNA. Grudem makes this point in his chapter too, emphasizing that he is making no genetic claims about Adam and Eve or original sin. He does not rule out interbreeding. He does not specify a timeline.
Studying Grudem’s 12 claims about Adam and Eve, all of them are compatible with evolutionary science. Sole-genetic progenitorship is not one of his claims. That is good news, because his traditional de novo view of Adam and Eve, as stated in his 12 points, is not necessarily in conflict with evolutionary science.
That being said, I once again want to emphasize that BioLogos appears to be working to catch up on these matters. It will take time. As @TedDavis will likely agree, we are facing a major paradigm shift in our understanding of how evolutionary science interacts with theology. This is a process unfolding as we speak. Do not be too harsh with BioLogos in this specific moment; look instead to see how they grow in the coming months.
@BradKramer and @DeborahHaarsma thank you for your hard work on this, and the movements being made to adjust to these new findings. Peace.