And have very different personnel, BioLogos being more of a haven for “recovering fundamentalists”. 
I agree. I was not trying to change the topic to BioLogos, but merely noting a parallel, that parallel being “failure to offer a clear thesis capable of being understood, analyzed, and criticized.” Just as John Harshman expresses frustration at the lack of a testable RTB thesis in biology, so I once experienced frustration at the lack of a testable BioLogos thesis in the academic field called “theology and science”. My parallel was a one-time aside for those interested, not an attempt to start discussing BioLogos.
As for RTB being “top down”, you may be right – I don’t know the people involved very well. If it is “top down”, however, I don’t think that’s a very healthy model for good science. Science is supposed to be meritocratic, not hierarchical. In principle there is no “head scientist” to whom other scientists owe deference; scientists should all constructively criticize each other. Also, you said that if there isn’t agreement at RTB about details, it doesn’t usually go public; but that’s precisely the opposite of real science, where scientists go public with disagreement over details in the journals, at conferences, in books, and in other ways. But this is another aside.
I wish John Harshman good luck in prodding RTB to be more explicit about their notion(s) of “kinds”. They will benefit not only him, but themselves, if they take his polite criticism seriously.