A friend who watches these things notes that genomic medicine prof (and ID foe) Joshua Swamidass hasn’t been active at BioLogos recently and doesn’t seem to be on their speakers’ list. The flies on the wall whisper that it relates to his willingness to entertain the idea of separate creation of Adam and Eve.
Haarsma:At BioLogos, our views on human origins are centered on essential biblical teachings about human identity and origins. We join all Christians in affirming that humans are made in the image of God, that humans have an elevated place in the created order, and that humans have a unique relationship with God. To this extent we are sure the leaders on this video would agree. However, we disagree that is it essential to believe God used a miracle to create a first pair; we instead argue that God used the natural mechanisms of evolution to create the first group of humans… Drawing a line that requires Christians to affirm a miraculous creation of Adam and Eve carries a significant risk of driving away those who might otherwise be drawn to the faith. We appeal to the Gospel Coalition to not frame the essentials of creation around the method God used to create humans, but around God’s purpose and intent for humans. God made us to know him, love him, and to bear his image in this world.
Swamidass:I am also an advocate of historical Adam theologians. There is absolutely zero evidence against Keller’s confession of the de novo creation of Adam and Eve “from the dust.” Entirely consistent with the genetic and archaeological evidence, Adam and Eve could have been specially created in a Garden and be ancestors of us all. This unequivocal scientific fact is an open secret among many BioLogos biologists, including many of those on the Board. Though he misrepresents my views, even @DennisVenema himself has endorsed this scientific fact in print (http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/07/response-to-the-symposium-part-1/2 ). [Also here, with easier formatting. – ed.]
Swamidass is not saying that he believes that Adam and Eve were separately created but only that it cannot be disproven. One source points out that it is unusual for BioLogos folk to argue among themselves in public over such substantive issues. Usually, they just attack anything that moves in the ID community.
See also: Protein families are still improbably astonishing – retraction of Matlock and Swamidass paper in order?
Biologist Wayne Rossiter on Joshua Swamidass’s claim that entropy = information
BioLogos gravitating to full-on naturalism?