Tim Bayly discusses a very troublesome drift on certain key questions relating to Adam here. If I might, I would like to add just a couple of comments.
First, just as we evaluate individual lives by the video, and not by the snapshot, so also we should measure churches, denominations, seminaries, and so on, in the same way. In short, there are two fundamental questions to ask — the first is where are they? and the second is what direction are they headed? On a two-lane road between Heaven and Hell, two cars can be at the same place in the road, but still headed in completely opposite directions. To expand the illustration, one car can be closer to Heaven, but headed the wrong direction, and the same for another car closer to Hell, but outbound.
We need to live up to what we have already attained (Phil. 3:16) Which end of the feet are the toes on? Where is this going? This is why it is so discouraging when someone like Collins starts to allow a type of crowd sourcing for Adam, a tribal chief, instead of Adam, a man made from the dust of the ground. This can be discouraging, while at the same time we can be encouraged by the musings of atheist Thomas Nagel in Mind & Cosmos. This is no inconsistency — the basic question is whether someone is being blown before the spirit of the age, or for some reason is refusing to be.
Second, let us always beware of proving too much. If Collins is making room for an egalitarian Fall, with Adam and Eve both doing the deed, this accommodates some of the feminist sensibilities of our age. But there is a dangerous risk here. If the history of Adam and Eve is normative, as the Bible plainly indicates, what does this do? It would be the actual history that is normative, right? Not the unreliable accounts that were patched together later? And this means, if Adam was a tribal chieftain, then Eve was probably the name for his harem in the cave where the babies were made. The pre-Adamite peoples were notable for their lack of sensitivity on these matters.