I recently received a question via email on my creation talk at last January's Preserving the Truth conference. The substance of the question was this: Where did you discover that Tim Keller holds to theistic evolution? Supposedly PCA churches hold to the Westminster Confession which includes creation, though not necessarily a young earth.
This is a good question because my talk slides did not show thorough documentation for the views of each conservative or broader evangelical that were listed. Here are two sources that support my assertion that Keller holds to theistic evolution and the Framework Theory:
In the paper, Keller's whole purpose is to support the notion that biblical orthodoxy is compatible with evolution. He very approvingly cites Kline's "because it had not rained" argument to support a non-literal reading of Genesis 1. "It means Genesis 1 does not teach that God made the world in six twenty-four hour days. Of course, it doesn't teach evolution either, because it doesn't address the actual processes by which God created human life. However, it does not preclude the possibility of the earth being extremely old" (p. 5). Further, he approves of Kidner's variant on the theistic evolutionary model for the creation of man (p. 10).
I'll grant that I am reading just a little bit between the lines, but what is clear is that Keller believes it is feasible to hold to a literal Adam and Eve while at the same time believing in their creation through evolutionary biological processes. It is not easy to pin Keller down because he believes that whatever view one takes, he should always be open to correction (p. 13).
I appreciate humility and the ability to receive correction. But where God has clearly spoken, this kind of humility can actually blur into unbelief.