I think @gbrooks9 is trying to protect me so that the idea is not diluted, and can be maximally useful to YECs. I appreciate that.
At the same time, there is a large number of views in the Church. YECs are just one group. I’m trying to avoid over specifying the details. Everything is held loosely. I’m even fine with holding to a figurative Adam, expect those Christians have never had a problem with evolution in the first place. So, the trick is adapting the model to those to whom we are speaking in that very moment.
Yes; I can see the value in being able to say, “well, if you hold the view that Adam was the first, ‘de novo’ human being, and that happened within the last ten thousand years, the genomic assays allow for that. But, then you’ll have to account for ancient temple ruins, vestiges of paleoanthropological culture like jewelry and cave art, etc. some other way than by Adam.”
That is, GA proposes a solution to the “inherited from Adam” notion, but not to a plethora of other forensic data. The model can only be used to justify so much, but not all.
Will check to see if I’ve got the latest. Glad to know it addresses more than I thought. Go get ‘em! Is Jack Collins’ available yet? I got the paper you sent me in January, but that’s all I have. Would love to see any revisions.
The first time I used Cambridge University Library back in 1972, I was delighted to see a book called “Garvey and Garveyism,” which turned out to be about the Back to Africa Movement. So that label’s taken.
I guess the real hope is that one’s better ideas will just infiltrate received wisdom, and become simply what everyone takes for granted. A bit like my great Uncle Henry’s invention of the knuckle joint on iron bedsteads (did I mention that here, or on the Hump?) - universally applied, but only we select few know its origin.