Hey, sorry, I’ve been neglecting the series for a while. I’ll try to be consistently back now, though, so here we go.
In this section Keller starts by saying that Christians take a wide variety of positions with regards to evolution, and that the direct conflict approach is only one, the most publicized one. He goes on to say that the obvious goal of Christians who “accept the bible’s authority” is to interpret the writing as the author intended. He gives examples of where the bible is meant to be read as a history and places where it is meant to be poetry. He then states that the interpretation of Genesis I is up for debate, and gives his own personal views on the subject. He says that it is false logic to conclude that if one part of the bible can’t be taken literally than none of it can. Then he asks what conclusions we can draw and decides that evolution is not important and should not be considered until after one has made decisions about the central tenants of Christianity. He ends the section by telling his personal views on evolution.
As you might expect I have a lot of problems with this section. Keller, throughout, tacitly implies that all the various interpretations of the scientific evidence are equally valid, which is incorrect. He actually recommends the policy of determining your faith, and then fitting the science to your now inflexible religious beliefs. This is backwards, one should use evidence to inform beliefs, not the other way around.
Keller is correct when he says that evolution is not central to Christianity. There is, in fact, no reason why there needs to be conflict between Christianity and evolutionary theory, unless you are a biblical literalist. And Keller is correct that there is no logical rule that states if one part of a text is not taken literally that no parts must be. However, this misses the point. When a skeptic points out that some parts of the bible are taken literally, and some parts aren’t, what he’s really asking is why? How do you, Keller, decide? Is it you that’s deciding? And if it’s you deciding than why does it have to be right?
The bible, at least by some Christians, is held as a perfect record so that anything within can be unquestioningly believed. When Keller says that some of the bible is to be literally true, and some not, he takes this away. He changes the rules so that now whichever parts of the bible he wants to, are unquestioningly true, and the rest is not. From a logical argument perspective he switches the assumption you are asked to accept from “The bible is true,” to “Pieces of the bible selected by me are true”.
You may be thinking, but Gene, why do you care? You don’t believe the bible is the inerrant word of God anyway. That’s true. I don’t accept either premise. However, if I am to debate with Keller, or someone like him, the former assumption is possible to work with. It is unchanging and defined. I can work within the limitations set and form an argument. The later is not defined and can be changed at any time by Keller to his own advantage. It is like playing a game where one side can change the rules. That’s why it’s not allowed in logic.
In this section Keller redefines what people mean by the bible. If you define the bible as the inerrant word of God then evolution does disprove that. You cannot believe both. I think this is the definition of “bible” that most people think is important. Keller uses the bible as any other text, one that must be parsed by the reader, and interpreted with careful and difficult thought to make any use of it. If you take this definition of the bible then it is essentially the same as any other book, and it is true that evolution does not disprove it. However, who cares if evolution disproves it or not, it’s just a book.
Side Note:
This dual nature problem keeps cropping up. There is the religion and bible that Christians, like Keller, use when they are trying to be logical, and then there is the one they use when they are selling the religion. On the selling side the bible is the word of the one true God and holds the answers to all your questions and if you just follow it you will live a good, happy, and just life and will be rewarded richly after you die. When in a logical debate the bible is a complicated text with difficult to parse nuances and subtle poetic wording that’s meaning is up for debate within the Christian community. I mean, who could really say what it says. You can understand why skeptics like me get frustrated.