The Reason for God

Tip-toeing around the truth

I read the section on evolution in Keller's book, "The Reason For God", which is my son's text in his high school religion class. I found the book overall quite irritating, especially in its generalities, such as, 'some Christians believe this, some Christians believe that', like he's being deliberately vague. I don't think that builds muscle or backbone in anyone's faith.

For the world can only have one history. There is only one truth to how the we all came to be. And the bible is very concerned with history. Without being exhaustive, the bible has told us what we need to know in enough detail for establishing the grounds of our faith. It contains much in terms of history, dates, and chronology. If these can't be trusted, then why trust any of its theology or moral teaching?

Keller says in this book that there are various positions a Christian could adopt on origins. I would say in response that the bible is already perfectly clear in its account. In fact, it couldn't be more clear in what it says about our origins.

Keller says that an enquirer into Christianity need not adopt any position on origins, but "Rather, he or she should concentrate on and weigh the central claims of Christianity." His mistake is not realising that many people are very concerned about truth. Finding truth, even historical truth, is an essential factor in exploring Christianity. People don't want to put their trust in a book that contains fables and half-truths.

Instead, Keller claims that six-day creationists are putting science 'in conflict' with Christianity. I find this an odd claim. I don't know if Keller has any training in the sciences. So I don't know by what authority he makes any pronouncements on science over and above the many highly qualified scientists in the creationist movement. However, the idea that scientists who take the plain, traditional, historic reading of Genesis are putting Christianity in conflict with science would be news to the founding greats of modern science, such as Kepler, Newton, Padcal, etc. For that's the way they understood Genesis.

In making such statements, Keller is just showing his ignorance of the topic, and showing that he hasn't looked into it well enough.

Yet the not so subtle 'dig' that Keller makes against other Christians by claiming that they're putting science in conflict is also as divisive as any other possible statement, despite his attempts to try and tip-toe through the vagaries of non-commitment.