It’s online and google accessible. Post a link when you find it.
Well, as we just explained, this is an inaccurate characterization of @nlents. He deserves far more respect that this, even if we disagree with him on important points.
Second, I’m concerned about goal post moving in this request. The book itself doesn’t argue that Adam and Eve were in fact de novo created. I certainly don’t argue this. Rather, I argue this:
I am pushing back on BioLogos’s insistence that “the de novo creation of Adam and Eve is not compatible with what scientists have found in God’s creation.” Aligned with this insistence, Deborah Haarsma confronted pastor Tim Keller for his confession that Adam and Eve were specially created. She still warns he “risks driving away those who might otherwise be drawn to the faith.”
This also is not true. The de novo creation of Adam and Eve is compatible with what scientists have found in God’s creation. Even if common descent is true, Adam and Eve could have been created without parents.
You don’t have to personally affirm de novo creation to agree that it isn’t in conflict with the evidence. We don’t have to even affirm common descent to affirm de novo creation is not in conflict with common descent. @NLENTS agrees as does several other scientists. That is all my book argues on this scientific point, all that’s required of those of us that care to honestly represent science to the public on this focused point.
If that’s what you mean by “affirm” de novo creation, then many of us do. If you want more than this, you’ve shifted the goal posts and missed the point of the book entirely.