Uh, not really. His proposals may be scientifically possible but not very likely, very artificial and nothing like the Genesis account. It is just an apologetical endeavour to rescue something were there is no theological or historical need for rescuing. Sometimes Ockham's razor is helpful...

@@derekhenrich8099 Uh, yeah really. Not likely if you presuppose that Adam and Eva were the first humans when it's pretty obvious they weren't. Have you read it? It's an investigation that dives into the complexities and nuances behind the subject that fundies and too liberal-minded readers both seem to ignore. Occams razor tells me that A&E fit well with what we know. If you wanna see an apologetic stretch, there's WLC's new book on it. That's way further back than is realistically possible

@@paradisecityX0 Ockham's razor tells me that A&E fit best in ANE mythology and that any attempt to make them real people is to miss the point of the story. Have you even listened to the podcast...?

Josh Swamidass is a double doctored research biologist. It is a hypothesis.

Genesis 1 is a taxiology. Not science. The prob is not really with conservative protestants. It is with expansive scientistic naturalism🤔🙂 The waters above do come down. God created life that changes, duh🙃 Genesis really happened just like that, Moses was right, but he was writing about functions or ordering. If Moses were The Speaker, he would say this. Link below🙂. We could have a Bible study where we all acted like Speaker Bercow to get it .... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jL-plrSF0pisooE.html