If historical = real, several in the BioLogos camp and elsewhere in TE adopt this position. It is not a fringe position. Some even tell me it is the dominant position among Biologos scholars. E.g. John Walton (along with every Wheaton Prof. that signs their belief statement). There is also Jack Collins.
If historical = real and genealogical, this has been prematurely rejected because people thought it was impossible. Turns out, most of the models that, for example, Loren Haarsma discusses are actually geneological Adam models too, even though I may be the first to point this out.
Right now, I may be the first with the scientific expertise and curiosity who has asked if a recent genealogical Adam is possible. That makes this contribution significant. Exciting, right? That is how scientific progress advances, with people asking questions of established ideas, gathering data, and answering them in ways using that data that we did not first expect: a recent genealogical Adam is possible.
However, being the first to raise an issue does not make a person right or wrong. The key thing from here is to determine what evidence falsifies my claims. Turns out, these claims have so far withstood a reasonable amount of scrutiny from my peers. We will see how it goes from here. Maybe I will be shown wrong, and I’ll try to be the first to admit it.
Instead, I’ve found most people in this conversation have not yet considered the idea, and cannot identify an data that disputes it. Give them time though. Maybe they eventually will.
Yes, but as we have seen, that is not the traditional account.
Except that they are not rejecting my scenario. There has been high academic interest in it. Great news, right?