He continues, but Keller suggests contrary to all the scientists he knows, evidently,

that you can still say you believe in evolution even if you keep the human race completely separate

from all other animal species, some of whom share nearly 99% of our DNA.

Now here I think would be appropriate for me to mention the forthcoming book by the

informational biologist Josh Swamidas, who is a professor at Washington University in St. Louis. His book on the genealogical

Adam and Eve shows that it is entirely compatible with modern science to believe that Adam and Eve were created de novo by

God in the relatively recent past and that they are ancestors of every human being alive today.

That surprising conclusion is demonstrated in Swami Das's book.

All that it requires is that the progeny of Adam and Eve, their descendants interbred

with the hominids that had evolved simultaneously with them and so contributed their DNA to their lines of

dissent. And if one has that hypothesis, which I'm not endorsing here, but simply drawing attention

to it, Keller's view is perfectly scientific. And Swami Das's book carries endorsements by a number of scientists who say

we were wrong when we said that Adam and Eve are incompatible with the findings of modern genetics and evolution.

And we touched on this earlier, Bill, you did, says,

in the end, Keller cannot allow science to contradict the Bible because that would undermine his entire theological framework.

I think that's an exaggeration.

What would undermine would be his view of biblical inspiration and inerrancy.

And that is a pretty serious revision.

Keller would need to substantially revise his view of inspiration and inerancy. But it wouldn't

undermine his entire theological framework.

He could still believe that God exists, that God is a Trinity, that Jesus Christ is the

incarnation of God, that he died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead. The doctrine of

...