The Reason For God - Chapter Six Review

I've been avoiding finishing this review, it's becoming depressing. Keller is predictable in his arguments and from my perspective not making very good ones. I don't like being so negative, but it's especially hard with this chapter.
The Title for Chapter Six is "Science Has Disproved Christianity". Obviously this is not the case, as you can't disprove religious belief. Faith can't be tested. You can give reasonable doubt, make good arguments, but if I believe that chocolate ice cream is the best, then that's what I believe. Unless you make a testable criteria for the best ice cream, belief trumps all.
Keller makes the usual jabs at Dawkins and those guys. This is silly, Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher of religion. His personal opinion, although popular, is just that. Keller also takes issue with evolution being an all encompassing theory. Which is fine, because scientists don't do that, Christians do. When Christians talk about evolution, they tend to throw in physics, geology and others into the mix, confusing things even more.
What I wish Keller had answered was the fact that when religion makes a testable claim and falls into the realm of science, it's believers tend to ignore the evidence and go with their beliefs. An example could be the role of religion is society. If Christians make a claim about the result of a "godless" society, we can look at societies that are "godless", and see if the prediction lines up with the result.
When a believer plays the miracle card, miracles by their definition are untestable and useless. That is presupposing that a miracle actually happened. 
Keller does make a claim about Genesis that I would like to quote.
"In each couplet one chapter describes a historical even and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event...I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a "song" about the wonder and meaning of God's creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened."
He just made a claim that can be investigated and studied. He claims that Genesis two could be considered "true". In no way shape or form is Genesis 2 an account of "how it happened." Well, if you want to throw out all modern scientific evidence, sure, it's true. That quote is the equivalent of someone claiming that the sun revolves around the earth. If you want to believe that, then yes, science has disproved your version of Christianity.
To end on a more positive note, if anyone is interested in more thoughts and discussions on this topic, and a few others, by scholars and people who seem to know what they are talking about, try the links below.
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/11/around-blogosphere.html
http://egalicontrarian.com/
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=4238
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/11/evolutionary-theology.html
http://evolutionarytheology.wordpress.com/
http://www.nd.edu/~cprelig/conferences/video/my_ways/index.htm
That could get a person started, there is a ton a stuff out there.
Cheers,
Scott
PS  - I would recommend three books as starters for those wishing to see the evidence for evolution.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero
The Greatest show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. This is Dawkins talking about something he's an expert on, not his personal beliefs.
Please don't argue the validity of the scientific evidence without doing some basic investigation, which I would say these books are.