16 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2020
    1. Our goal is to be transparent when we make changes, and credit those who helped us refine our thinking.

      BioLogos refused requests to be transparent about mistakes it has made on population genetics (see here and here).

    2. a model of two Homo sapiens as recent sole progenitors is inconsistent with scientific evidence

      This is not a true statement. A model of two Homo sapiens as recent sole progenitors can be consistent with the scientific evidence. See, for example, The Genealogical Adam and Eve to see one counter example.

    3. Given the biblical account of Adam and Eve as our ancestors, a common question is whether there was a time in our history when there were just two Homo sapiens.

      Human is not well described in theology and science as Homo sapiens. This is a loaded reframing of the question as it is commonly asked...could we (all humans by a theological definition) descend from Adam and Eve?

      Rephrasing this question to reference Homo sapiens is a type of garden path, a misleading statement.

    4. the average breeding population

      In the past BioLogos claimed that population genetics indicated the minimum population was larger than thousands, going back more than 18 million years. So this is a signiicant walk back of past overstatements of the evidence.

    5. We have recently updated a 2017 article

      This is the article in which Dr. Deborah Haarsma confronted The Gospel Coalition and Tim Keller with false scientific objections to de novo creation. At the time, several biologists notified Dr. Haarsma that her confrontation was an overreach, including myself, In Defense of Tim Keller.

      Dr. Haarsma's article was stealth-edited 17 months later. BioLogos refused requests to be transparent about this mistake, correct an misattribution, and to explanation the delay to correction.

    6. Over the years, we have removed old content from our website for many reasons, including articles that no longer reflected current scientific findings, that overstated scientific claims, that unnecessarily excluded theological positions that are consistent with scientific evidence, or that simply were written by authors who did not have expertise in the topic.

      A historically important article from 2011 was stealth deleted in January 2020. The article can be found here.

      This article made false scientific claims, claims that never reflected the scientific consensus. BioLogos refused requests to put the article back online with an explanation of what the errors were and why it was taken down.

    7. this Common Question multiple times to reflect new scientific findings

      There remains substantial concern about the lack of transparency in these revisions. When were they made and why? How can new revisions be submitted?

    8. We revised the Common Question

      See the history of revisions to this document here.

    9. In this article, BioLogos acknowledges some scientific errors in their work, but also reasserts some scientific errors. See the discussion on this article.

    10. but not sole progenitor

      Here, #BioLogos is overreaching. The term "sole-progenitor" is a theological term, with several possible meanings. So, in fact, Adam and Eve can be recent sole-progenitors of all people (see here and here).

    1. Findings in population genetics, particularly those concerning Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, indicate that a single first "Adam and Eve" pair of human beings never existed.

      This is a scientifically false claim that requires several hidden assumptions about Adam and Eve. There is a great deal of scholarship that shows some understandings of Adam and Eve can be consistent with evolutionary science. One such example is The Genealogical Adam and Eve (2019.

  2. Nov 2020
    1. When this article was first published, BioLogos was informed it was misleading (1, 2 and 3). Eventually edits were made, but this article still has issues.

      See the history of edits on this page at Peaceful Science.

    1. As a result, at least one theistic evolutionist, when confronted with student’s own admissions, has declined to defend the student’s blog.36

      I am the TE to whom Jeanson is referring here. He has misrepresented my statement, and declined my request to correct his misrepresentation.


    1. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

      This scientific statement turns out to be mistaken. Entirely consistent with the evidence, if Adam and Eve were real people in a real past, we expect that we all descend from them. https://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2020/08/the-genealogical-adam-and-eve-a-rejoinder/