Tim Keller on Science and Scritpture

Recently, I read Tim Keller’s paper on “Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople.”  Its a white paper on how to navigate the scientific evidence presented for evolution and still maintain faith and trust in the Bible. It wants to honor the overwhelmingly significant contributions science has made to humanity and honor the God given authority of Scripture.  In the end Keller’s approach ends up giving voice to what is called “Theistic Evolution.” This is a strange syncretism of thoughts and evidences, which Richard Dawkins would think too theistic and Ken Ham would think too evolutionary.

During the course of his thinking Keller makes some great points that I whole heartily agree with:

• This is a confusing and problematic topic in which pastors need to get involve.
• Scripture should not be read in a strictly "literal" fashion.  Rather it should be read through the lens of a plain and normal understanding of grammar, literature and genre.
• The key to understanding a text is to understand the authors intend in writing the text.
• Scripture is not always written in a straightforward, linear and sequential manner.  It does contain “compressions, omissions and figurative language.”
• To interpret Scripture accurately we must submit our options and preference to the voices and writers within Scripture first.

Although, I appreciate the work Dr. Keller put into this paper I do have a few issues (mostly foundational) with his approach.

• At its core, this paper is meant to help the church community carefully balance an appreciation for science’s involvement to our lives and a respect for the holy writ. Keller tries to do the hard thinking for people in order to distill down the arguments. However, I wish Keller would have taken one step back and done the same thing with the topic of just evolution.  Instead of seeking the legitimacy of evolutionary biological processes (EBP) he simply assumes the evidence for evolution is correct and accurate.  Keller must know the discussion over humanity’s origins still rages, but he feels the freedom to skip all that and look for safer ground.  Either he believes in evolution or has given into a different kind of “plausibility structure.”
  

• Related to the above comment, Keller again shortchanges a larger discussion and does not give the fuller issue the attention he needs. In the first paragraph of his paper Keller gives only the two most extreme views of the science and religion discussion (pro-faith/anti science & pro-science/anti-faith) thus setting up his paper to win the day by providing a compromise.  He posits the most extreme science and religions in conflict model while ignoring the contrast, contact and confirmation[1] So, what about those who are pro-science and pro-religion and still don’t think EBP are correct? Again, by assuming the validity of evolution Keller short changes those he is trying to help. Instead of trying to “reconcile what science seems to tell them about evolution with their traditional theological beliefs” they should be investigating what science is telling them about evolution, first. 
  models.

• If we see Genesis 1 as “exalted prose narrative” (which I understand) as Keller suggests in order to not exaggerate the incompatibility between faith and evolutionary biology, the church may lose more than just creationist ammunition.  If we lean more to the less literalistic-hermeneutic side (as opposed to the more prose/narrative side) of the issue, I think we can do damage to the theology of the image dei[2]
  (1:26-27), the specific differences between man and women (1:27), the dominion and responsibility of humanity for creation (1:26; 28), the initial goodness of creation (1:31) and the concept of the Sabbath (2:2-3).

• Likewise, if we take Genesis 2-3 as not being “exalted prose narrative,” but revealing the accounts of actual events and understand that it “looks like history” what do we do with:
• 2:7-8 where God is said to create man out of the dust of the earth and subsequently becomes a living being?
• 2:19 where God formed the animals out of the ground?
• 2:22 where God made women from the rib of the man?
• 3:1 and existence of the Satan?
• 3:7 and the sin that resulted in the spiritual and physical death of humanity?
• 3:17-19 and the curse of God that plagues the world?

In the end, I agree with Keller’s concluding thought that those seeking to reconcile science and Scripture must be a “bigger tent” then either the extreme anti positions. Even though this is what Keller was trying to do, I don’t think he succeeded. I think Keller has muddied the waters more by his assumptions, false dichotomies and acquiesces to EBP. Don’t get me wrong, I respect Keller and appreciate his thoughts and ministry focus, but to me his view here falls short of its goal. 

Other resrouces:
Jesus Creed: Tim Keller on Adam and Eve (RJS)
God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science
 

---

[1] John, F. Hought, Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, Paulist Press, (New Jersey, 1995), 3-4, 9.

[2] Genesis chapter 2 does not start a new thought until verse 4.  Therefore verse 2 and 3 still fit within the former thoughts of chapter 1.