I am actually arguing the opposite. I am saying that “human” is ambiguous and has no fixed meaning, so we have autonomy to define in any way we want in the distant past, as long as (at minimum) every one alive that Paul is referring to ends up being human by that definition. There is no such thing as a “proper” way to use “human” in the distant past, because there is such a large range of uses.
These caveats are made all the time.
John Walton makes them in his book when he discusses Adam as the first “true” human. Kidner makes a similar distinction (in a far more problematic way) with a hybrid race of true humans between evolved Adam and specially created Eve (who are not ancestors of us all in his conception). Dennis Lamaruex also describes behaviorally modern humans as the first true humans. The same is for the Homo divinus discourse in Catholicism.
It is standard discourse in theology to make distinctions of before and after Adam in any evolutionary context includes him. It is also standard discourse in those that do not include him, because at some point we have to decide of “Human” applies to Homo sapiens alone, or also Homo erectus.
“Human” has no fixed meaning in the distant past. Not in science. Not in theology. This is well known.
It is standard in the theological discourse to draw lines in origins between different theological classes, even if they are fuzzy lines. In traditional theology it is common to posit “biologically compatible beings” that existed before Adam, but were not the subject of Scripture. Because everyone agrees humans are distinct from the rest of the creation. But how is that line drawn? That is why everyone makes distinctions here.
The stranger thing is that objecting to this is being applied selectively to genealogical science. Given the precedence for this, I just do not understand.
As Jeff Hardin writes:
Josh rightly reminds us to use caution in using the term “human” in scientific claims; the ambiguity and theological weight of the term “human” can create confusion about what science does and does not say.
And specifically about the intended audience. They appear to love it.