I agree with you that BioLogos would do well to explicitly affirm GAE as a viable option. I hope that with the publication of your book (ranked #1 by Amazon in the “Creationism” category!) the good folks at BL will do exactly that.
I have just read the official BioLogos statement you linked to. It does not contain the sentence you quoted.
The two affirmations it does make are as follows:
At BioLogos, we are persuaded by the scientific evidence that Homo sapiens evolved, arising about 200,000 years ago and sharing common ancestors with all other life on Earth. Furthermore, it increasingly appears that the genetic diversity among humans today could not have come from just two Homo sapiens individuals, but a population of thousands.
Haarsma clarifies in a forum post dated April 2018 that the scenario BL was rejecting was exactly the one I said they were rejecting–to wit, a de novo A&E created ~6000 years ago that were the sole progenitors of the entire H. Sapiens species. In her own words:
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.” 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).
In fact, here is the original quote, which includes a statement portion that I think you should have included but did not:
it is true that evolutionary creationists cannot affirm the traditional de novo view of human origins (in which God miraculously creates the first pair roughly 10,000 years ago, with this pair as the sole genetic progenitors of all humans today) [emphasis added]
You see, Joshua? Haarsma is not ruling out GAE. I’m not sure why you omitted the remainder of Haarsma’s statement, but I think you would do well to include that remainder whenever you quote it in the future.
The official BioLogos position in fact cites your ASA paper in offering a historical A&E living 6000 years ago as a viable option:
In another version Adam and Eve are recent historical persons , living perhaps 6000 years ago in the ancient Near East rather than Africa. By this time Homo sapiens had already dispersed throughout the earth. God then revealed himself specially to a pair of farmers we know as Adam and Eve. God could have chosen them as spiritual representatives for all humanity. Genealogical science suggests that a pair living at that time and place could be part of the genealogies of all humans living today.
This statement certainly does not reject a de novo A&E.
In fact, Haarsma made another statement in which she expressed interest in the GAE hypothesis:
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. Josh has done important work on recent universal genealogical ancestors that we’ve affirmed as good science and inside the BioLogos “tent” , with the peer-reviewed publication only last month at Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith ; the de novo arguments are even newer.
With my prayers for a smash best-seller,