Hiebert uses source criticism in his discussion of the tension between creationism and evolution (TBC, pp. 6-8). Hiebert describes and rejects two approaches for resolving this tension, and then offers his own proposal: the biblical text outlines an approach to cosmology that is still valid to modern readers and still relevant even though our scientific understanding is much greater.
Source criticism is used to consider the motivations of the Priestly writer of the first creation story. Hiebert argues that, consistent with the Priestly approach as it is understood by modern bible scholars, the writer is attempting to place the ancient understanding of cosmology into a theological frame. Specifically, the Priestly writer is using cosmology as an example of the orderliness of God’s creation; and generally, the writer is trying to convince his readers that there is a way of understanding cosmology that includes cultural and religious views (8).
In short, Hiebert concedes that the Genesis account is less accurate than modern approaches, but argues that it is a more “holistic account of beginnings” (8). Hiebert challenges modern theologians to approach our modern understanding of cosmology with the same goal: to provide a more complete understanding of creation than we would be able to achieve by only using modern science. I think that Hiebert’s argument is quite compelling and does a good job of using source criticism to make his point.