There still remain several major problems with this statement. Perhaps most unfortunate is the claim here, obviously troubled by the evidence:
BioLogos is actively promoting dialogue and scholarship on this issue.
This links to an article from 2012, where I quote Ken Keathley here:
The status of Adam and Eve: Evolutionary creationists appear to disagree among themselves about whether or not Adam was a historical figure. Some, such as Denis Lamoureux, declare Adam to be a mythical character. Others (Denis Alexander comes to mind) view Adam as representative of the first Neolithic farmers with whom God entered into a relationship.
For most Southern Baptists, including me, the historicity of Adam and Eve is a litmus test. Even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals why we believe this way. The New Testament authors treat Adam as a historical figure, and they interconnect the mission and work of Jesus with the first man. Paul repeatedly presents Christ as the last Adam—succeeding where the first Adam failed and redeeming fallen humanity in the process. C. John Collins has written an excellent book on the subject entitled Did Adam and Eve Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care . He gives three criteria for an orthodox understanding of Adam and Eve (pp 120-21), and I believe they are worth repeating here.
- The origin of the human could not have come about by mere natural processes.
- Adam and Eve were “at the headwaters of the human race.”
- A historical fall must have occurred very closely to the beginning of the human race.
Evolutionary creationists still have a great deal of work to do in this area. If no evolutionary theory can be found that can reasonably incorporate above three criteria, then that would be a deal killer.
Southern Baptist Voices: Expressing Our Concerns - BioLogos
Of course, the GAE answers these questions, and BioLogos has been resistant to it from the beginning. Ken Keathley has expressed support the GAE now, finding alternate way to affirm evolutionary science, distinct from BioLogos.
More seriously, the current version of the statement still implicitly argues that the traditional de novo view is challenged by science. The removal of the explicit statement against it is a step in the right direction, but the absence of acknowledgement of the GAE or of myself communicates their values and priorities here.
Hopefully more change are coming. I was surprised that BIoLogos was not enthusiastic about a recovery of a traditional understanding of Adam and Eve within evolution. Even these changes came without notice, downplayed, and out of touch with the longstanding objections to evolutionary creation. Why? Over the last 2 years it has been clear that they oppose a traditional understanding of Adam and Eve for reasons other than science. That is their right, but I have come to understand them as a theological advocacy group, not a science advocacy group. There is no reason to be anti-traditional. Science does not all ways give us the answers we want.
I hope they continue to evolve, giving credit where credit is due. For now, I give them credit for the small movements in the right direction. It will be worth watching the evolution of evolutionary creation from here.