For an organization like BioLogos and like Peaceful Science, we intend to communicate with a wide and diverse audience that includes people with different definitions of these terms.
At Peaceful Science, we have sought to explain these differences and create space for different uses of these terminology. Our goal is avoid making illegitimate pronouncements on theological categories by enforcing narrow definitions of theological terms. As I just explained to @TedDavis, BioLogos’s claim is only true if enforcing a narrow definition of words,
I do not believe this is legitimate. Whatever the intentions, the text itself is misleading and exclusionary. Instead, it is correct to say,
a model of two Homo sapiens as recent sole progenitors can be consistent with scientific evidence, depending what precisely we mean by sole progenitor.
An organization such as Peaceful Science or BioLogos should also explain what possible meanings could be, and what would or would not be consistent with the evidence.
What organizations devoted to educating the public cannot do is appeal to a populist definition as normative. To do this would be equivalent to a teacher polling the classroom to determine the answer key for a multiple choice test.