Belief in an age of evolution

I want to make a few comments about a popular new book on apologetics, as it concerns the general area of creation and evolution.

Quotes and comments;
The quotes are from a review of The Reason for God by Timothy Keller.

A. 'He asserts that Genesis 1 is a poem (p. 93), that the interpretation is up for debate, and that many Christians with a high view of Scripture have no problem accepting evolution without embracing materialism.' [1.]

- Theistic evolution can itself be seen as a poem; a hymn of praise to Darwin and the secular spirit of the age. The idea Gen. 1. is mere poetry is certainly a radical rewriting of the original text. (One problem here is that in our day 'poetry' is seen as fanciful and untrue, mere imagery. In other words, the problem is that too many Christians have adopted a humanistic view of poetry. In the bible, and in orthodox theology, some of the most important verses in the bible come in the outward form of poetry. e.g. some of the Psalms.) The ancients certainly didn't take the view that if a claim was made in the form of a poem it was necessarily untrue. The form of poetry actually fits the creation far better than does prose. Imagine how poor Gen 1. would sound put in the form of prose.

B. 'Keller asserts that belief in evolution does not necessarily lead to materialistic philosophy (p. 88), but does not offer any actual evidence to back up his statement...'

- I see this kind of thing all the time in reading people who affirm theistic evolution. The strategy they employ is to equivocate in the use of the word evolution. They claim to believe in evolution, but the 'evolution' they defend isn't the theory as it's presented by secular authorities at all. There is absolutely no room for god in the textbook evolution taught in our schools. The 'theory' of evolution is a simple (necessary) deduction from Materialism. If you're a m. you have to be an evolutionist; there's no other answer. Yes; you can believe that the earth was a space colony, planted by intelligent beings in the distant past, but your ultimate explanation for the origin of life has to be 'mechanical' evolution. Keller's claim is empty. If you look around you see that adopting e. leads to secularism and materialism. The evidence seems conclusive to me.

When people like Keller say they believe in evolution they seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouth. They want to appease both the biblical creationist and the atheistic materialist.

Since evolution is presented as a blind and random process, theistic evolutionists are claiming god used a random process. This seems hard to believe or accept. The implication is that man is a random, chance product. This makes all human experience an accidental process and product. It's pretty obvious (to me at least) how this leads directly to heresies like process theology. (e.g. what connection can there be between the character of god and man the accidental product? what connection can there be between the unchanging law of god and an ever evolving primate?)

C. 'Interestingly, at the end of his chapter, Keller affirms that ‘God did not originally make the world to have disease, hunger, and death in it’ (p. 96). However, according to Keller’s long-age evolutionary interpretation, disease, hunger and death were around from the beginning.

- The theistic evolutionist always wants to have things both ways. No matter what the issue, he wants to adopt both the secular materialist view And the biblical view. He can't decide which of two roads to take, so he stands in the intersection and waits for things to blow over. (Wait; is that a bus coming?)

D. 'Obviously, Keller’s view of sin is warped by his theistic evolutionary beliefs; in fact, he identifies ‘original sin’ not as due to Adam’s disobedience in Eden (as the Apostle Paul does in Romans 511), but as ‘humanity’s inherent pride and self-centeredness’ (p. 167).

- A major problem with this view is that it almost necessarily presents us with a time when mankind was not fallen. i.e. if we trace man's history backward we'd come to a time man hadn't yet developed this pride and self-centeredness. We'd come to a time 'man' was an innocent creature. (Keller's view of original sin is far from orthodox. The biblical view of sin isn't self-centeredness, but rebellion against god. The sin isn't pride but a desire to be god.)

E. 'He affirms that ‘when human beings turned from God the entire warp and woof of the world unraveled. Disease, genetic disorders, famine, natural disasters, aging, and death itself are as much the result of sin as are oppression, war, crime, and violence’ (p. 170).

- And when was this? If Genesis is just myth we'd like to know when this 'event' took place... but the theisitic e.s. don't tell us. (It might seem then that their story is the mythical one.)

Theistic evolutionists are the product of 'public' (statist) education. If you send children to statists schools they Will come out as e.s. The reason for this isn't the great case teachers (and later professors) make for evolutionary theory, but simply the fact e. is everywhere accepted and spoken of as a fact beyond controversy. Take any course whatsoever, and the teacher will bring evolution into it; talking about it as if it were a certain and as settled a fact as the chemical makeup of water. It's this factor that turns students into (largely unthinking) evolutionists.

Notes;
1. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller - reviewed by Lita Cosner
- Of course there's no such thing as belief in general. People don't have 'belief' but believe in various propositions or claims. (e.g. people have a belief in christianity, but they also have a belief in evolution, creation, or theistic evolution. (Theistic evolution seems like an oxymoron to me.)
2. There are many fine Christians who believe in theistic evolution and a long age of the earth. My comments shouldn't be construed to claim otherwise. I just don't feel the position is intellectually or spiritually consistent.
- one of my favorite creationist writers, Arthur Custance, believed in a long age for the earth.
3. It takes a lot of courage to defend the biblical model of creation, and I find it hard to blame people who aren't up to the challenge. I think they're wrong, but I know how difficult it can be.
4. If evolution is as scientific as people like Keller claim, one wonders why we don't hear of a belief in theistic gravity, or theistic chemistry.
5. I'm not knocking Keller personally, I'm just using this book as an example of very common thinking within the church.
6. Perhaps God used evolution to create the world because he didn't want our educated Christians (liberals) to be embarassed when they interact with their atheistic peers.