Timothy Keller's Impactful Response: A Christian Perspective on Faith

Responding to Timothy Keller's 'Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople'

Introduction

In a paper titled "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople," Timothy Keller explores the challenge of reconciling science and the Bible for Christian laypeople who value both. He acknowledges that many Christians struggle with the apparent conflict between scientific theories of evolution and the biblical account of creation. Keller proposes a compromise that suggests God could have used evolution to predispose people to believe in Him, allowing them to consider true belief when they encounter the Gospel.

Genesis 1: Literal or Poetic?

One of the main problems evolution presents for Protestants, according to Keller, is the need to interpret Genesis 1 as non-literal in order to accommodate evolutionary processes. He argues that Christians should respect the authority of biblical writers by interpreting their intentions correctly. Keller compares Genesis 1 and 2 to Judges 4 and 5, where one chapter provides historical events while the other offers a poetic description of the same events. He suggests that Genesis 1 can be seen as an exalted, semi-poetical account rather than a literal one.

However, Keller's interpretation overlooks the fact that Genesis 1 uses literary features typical of historical narrative, such as numbered days and evening/morning patterns. While there may be vivid language in Genesis 1, it does not necessarily mean it is poetry. Keller's argument fails to acknowledge the historical interpretation of Genesis 1 by generations of Jews and Christians who understood it as a straightforward account of creation.

The Order of Creation in Genesis 1 versus Genesis 2

Keller raises another point of contention regarding the order of creation in Genesis 1 compared to Genesis 2. He claims that the two accounts present contradictory sequences and cannot both be read as straightforward historical events. However, early church writers like Theophilus and Basil saw no conflict between the two accounts. They even used the literal creation of the sun on the fourth day as a polemic against pagan beliefs.

Keller's argument that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory overlooks a simple explanation. Genesis 2:5 specifically mentions the absence of certain types of plants, such as cultivated ones, which did not exist due to the lack of rain and human cultivation. This does not imply that all vegetation was absent. By asserting a contradiction between the two chapters, Keller fails to consider alternative interpretations that reconcile them without compromising their historical nature.

The Biological Process of Evolution versus Social Darwinism

Keller dedicates several pages to separating the belief in biological evolution from the broader "Grand Theory of Evolution" associated with naturalism and social Darwinism. He acknowledges that accepting biological evolution does not necessarily mean embracing atheistic or social Darwinist ideologies. Keller points out examples of individuals who believe in evolution while maintaining a belief in God.

While it is possible for individuals to hold these beliefs simultaneously, Keller fails to address the fundamental conflict between evolution and Christianity. Evolution undermines the need for God's intervention in creation, making Him superfluous. Additionally, it introduces a historical order that places death and suffering before sin, which contradicts the foundations of the Gospel message.

Keller acknowledges the link between social Darwinism and the broader theory of evolution but argues that Christians should focus on countering the "Grand Theory of Evolution" rather than rejecting biological evolution. However, in practice, many theistic evolutionists align with atheistic evolutionists against biblical creationists rather than finding common ground.

Evolution, Adam, and Sin

Keller acknowledges the challenge of reconciling evolution with a historical Adam and Eve. He recognizes that key New Testament authors treat Adam and the Fall as historical figures and events. Keller agrees with the importance of a historical Adam and Eve but proposes an interpretation that combines evolutionary biological processes with their existence.

Keller suggests that just as Job was fashioned by God through natural processes, Adam could have similarly emerged through a natural process described as being formed from dust. However, this argument fails to consider the distinction between the poetic genre of Job and the historical narrative of Genesis 2. Keller's interpretation appears to be an attempt to reconcile evolutionary processes with a literal Adam and Eve, but it raises questions about the compatibility of his views with biblical teachings.

Analysis

Keller's paper raises concerns about his interpretations and assertions. His arguments lack strength and often rely on qualifiers, leaving readers with a sense of wishy-washiness. While Keller attempts to appear faithful to the text, his interpretations seem influenced by a desire to accommodate long ages and evolutionary theories.

Furthermore, Keller seems dismissive of biblical creationists, lumping them together with "anti-scientific religionists" who need enlightenment. His lack of familiarity with mainstream creationist literature is evident in his simplistic objections regarding Cain's wife and the discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2.

It is possible to reconcile science and the Bible by subordinating science to the authoritative Word of God rather than reinterpreting Scripture. Keller's attempt to harmonize evolution with biblical teachings through reinterpretation fails to satisfy both biblical creationists and evolutionists.

Why This Matters

The debate surrounding creation and evolution is essential for Christians seeking to understand how science and faith intersect. It raises questions about the interpretation of Scripture and the compatibility of scientific theories with biblical teachings. Exploring these topics helps believers develop informed perspectives that align with their faith.

Think About It

Consider how different interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 shape our understanding of creation. How might these interpretations impact our beliefs about God's role in creation and our understanding of His character?

Reflect on the challenges of reconciling evolution with a historical Adam and Eve. What implications does this have for our understanding of sin, salvation, and humanity's relationship with God?