I have not read it but a few articles I came across noted the author's theistic evolutionist stand.
"4. While Keller makes some good arguments against atheistic evolution,
unfortunately, he is a strong proponent of theistic evolution (pp.
87-88, 92-95, 128-129). This fact strips most of his creationist
arguments of their power."
Keller used Ian Barbour case (pg 88):
...Ian Barbour lays out four different ways that science and religion may be related to each other: conflict, dialogue, integration, and independence...
So, many Reformers today, like Keller, looked at dialogue and wish to play it safe on their unknown subject.
I will say that they would easily see "conflict" as unreasonable in this case because they are emotionally disturbed by "conflict". And they do not examine their emotion itself but what the emotion dictates as good or evil.
It seems to me, when Keller revealed his own view in pg. 93-94, that he does not want to fully reject evolution (except for viewing it as "All-encompassing Theory"), is due to the fact that he felt sorry for those who are stuck in between two "extremes".
His biblical argument was that like Exodus 14&15, Judges 4&5, Genesis could be read as poetry/metaphorically and historically as well.
But the thing is, this is not a song nor is it suggesting any metaphor.
I would say Keller is on thin ice on this subject and he knew it.
For page 128-129, the case with the big bang. Though a theory, I think Keller points it well to the fact that there is still a hint of God for such.
I am not going to say because Keller played the Big Bang hypothesis, he had a part in evolutionism.
The following topic in the book about "Fine-Tuning Argument" or the "Anthropic Principle" which points to multiverse and such, is too long wind and unnecessary. I felt a great waste of time thinking that Keller actually had some new points by bringing Alvin Plantinga and John Leslie's illustrations. But all in all, it was just reversing the order of "Cannot prove A; also cannot prove not A". My first impression was that Keller had not studied Mathematics well. pg 130-131