Uncritical Thinking about Theistic Evolution

This post by Jamin Hubner concerns me for several reasons.

He has been blogging on "Lessons in Logic and Argumentation," and yet his post about theistic evolution lacks  critical interaction with the folks being criticized, or with the literature on theistic evolution in general.  Take this little tidbit:

And somehow, we are supposed to believe that all of this is compatible with Christian orthodoxy and that none of it negatively changes our understanding of what it means to be God's images. Just bow the knee to "science," say we all came from monkeys, and keep going to church with a smile and everything will be fine.

We were given one reason to accept that theistic evolution is "a serious threat" to the Christian worldview: "man came from non-God and non-image."  But what exactly does this mean?  Is he implying that if God saw fit to use evolutionary means to make creatures of the kind he intends, then this would entail that man "came from" non-God and non-image?  In one sense, I came from my mother.  In another sense, my father.  (And perhaps in yet another, both!)  It's not clear to me how theistic evolution implies that man "came from" non-God and non-image, except to say that we were not directly created by God.  But, of course, all humans after Adam and Eve weren't directly created by God.  So what's the argument here?  Perhaps an argument wasn't even intended, and this should be interpreted as a high-five-to-my-comrads kind of post.  But then, would a post like this belong on an apologetics blog or was this more appropriate for Twitter?

Next, we are told that theistic evolution "negatively changes our understanding of what it means to be made in God's image."  I can grant that theistic evolution radically alters how Christians have viewed the subject, but exactly how does this constitute evidence against belief in theistic evolution?

Thirdly, he accuses Tim Keller of supporting theistic evolution by virtue of his association with BioLogos.  Does Tim Keller "Just bow the knee to 'science,' say we all came from monkeys, and keep going to church with a smile and everything will be fine?"  What  does Pastor Keller have to say for himself?

Well, actually in this article (linked from Keller's bio which Hubner directs us to in his post), Keller attempts to lend a helping how to Hubner's "somehow, we are supposed to believe that all of this is compatible with Christian orthodoxy."  He discusses the exegetical concerns, the implications for orthodox belief, the philosophical assumptions, and he replies to objections.  He argues that the Christian can believe in "evolution through biological processes" without necessarily affirming the "grand theory of evolution."  And at the end of his article, Keller says:

"Is this the only model possible for those who believe in an historical Fall yet who believe God used evolution to bring about life on earth? No. Some believe in theistic evolution."

Of course, Hubner paid no attention to Keller's position.  He only directs our attention to an organization that Keller has joined, and asserts that this means Keller has given his approval to theistic evolution.  Instead of explaining or interacting with Keller's position, Jamin just sticks a big fat label on Keller (and others).