Objections From ‘Atheist Spat’ Article
In response to the article on a spat between New Atheists vs their bedfellows in the NCSE/BCSE, theistic evolutionist Richard M. complains about the use of the term “useful idiot” and claims that CMI denigrates science by setting it in opposition to a literal Genesis. Richard’s e-mail is first given in its entirety, then there follows a point-by-point response by Philip Bell and Jonathan Sarfati, interspersed.
As a lifelong Christian who is nonetheless considered by you and your organization to be a ‘useful idiot,’ I feel compelled to comment on this article. The fact that you consider me, as a scientist who accepts biological evolution, to be in the same camp as vocal atheists speaks volumes about your view of scripture. I think that here is the crux of the matter. Your organization denigrates scientific knowledge gained by ‘fallible men;’ and contrasts it with a literal (or ‘plain meaning’) reading of scripture. But consider this: deny it though you might, interpretation of scripture is at least as subject to human fallibility as is scientific observation. This is simple to demonstrate; CMI and those of like mind have an interpretation of scripture that you hold to be without error. Other groups have diametrically-opposed views, which they also defend as being without error. In fact, there is a vast spectrum of conflicting views that all claim to be without error. The inescapable conclusion is that some or all of these interpretations must necessarily be in error. Yet you have determined that your position alone is the correct one. This is a bit (?) presumptuous.
Your likely response will probably be yet another recitation of your litany of carefully-compiled reasons why you are right and all others are wrong. I won’t try to argue you out of this mindset because it can’t be done, but please to try to accept that you just might be mistaken. And please also try to modify your notion that Christians who disagree with your approach are no better than ‘useful idiots’ of Satan.
Philip and Jonathan respond:
Thank you for your e-mail. You wrote:….
Continue Reading on creation.com