Unveiling the True Meaning of Being a Faithful Servant: The Useful Idiot Who Meets His Savior

'Useful Idiot'—Who, Me?

Introduction:

In a recent article, there was a mention of a "spat" between New Atheists and Christian evolutionists. Theistic evolutionist Richard M. objected to the use of the term "useful idiot" and accused the organization of denigrating science by setting it against a literal interpretation of Genesis. In response, Philip Bell and Jonathan Sarfati address Richard's concerns point by point.

Point 1: Use of the Term "Useful Idiot":

Richard expresses his discomfort with being labeled a "useful idiot" as a scientist who accepts biological evolution. However, Bell and Sarfati clarify that the term refers to the strategy employed by certain secular groups. These groups use the testimony of Christian evolutionists to advance their atheistic agenda, even though they strongly disagree with their Christian views. The term "useful idiot" does not imply that Richard is in the same camp as vocal atheists, but rather that he unwittingly aids their campaign against biblical Christianity.

Point 2: Denigration of Scientific Knowledge:

Richard argues that the organization denigrates scientific knowledge gained by fallible humans by contrasting it with a literal reading of scripture. Bell and Sarfati counter this claim by emphasizing that they value scientific knowledge and employ scientists with various qualifications and expertise in relevant fields. They acknowledge that science has explanatory power but assert that it is an imperfect enterprise conducted by fallible individuals. They also distinguish between operational science (which can be experimentally tested) and origins science (which deals with past events outside human observation), highlighting the subjective nature of origins science.

Point 3: Literal Interpretation of Scripture:

Richard suggests that interpreting scripture is subject to human fallibility, just like scientific observation. He argues that there are conflicting interpretations of scripture, leading to the conclusion that some or all must be in error. Bell and Sarfati clarify that they uphold the infallibility of Scripture itself, not the interpretations of readers. They emphasize the importance of interpreting scripture based on rules of grammar, historical context, and literary context. They provide an analogy to demonstrate the necessity of a single, rigid interpretation for effective communication.

Point 4: Plurality of Interpretations:

Richard points out that there is a vast spectrum of conflicting views on scripture, all claiming to be without error. He accuses the organization of presumptuously determining their position as the correct one. Bell and Sarfati counter by asserting that even though there are multiple interpretations, it does not mean that there is no correct interpretation. They argue that Christians who align their thinking on origins with the teachings of Jesus Christ are on solid ground. They highlight Jesus' endorsement of the Pentateuch (including Genesis) and its foundational role in explaining the Gospel.

Point 5: Presumption and Recitation of Arguments:

Richard anticipates that the response will be another recitation of reasons why the organization is right and others are wrong. He expresses skepticism about changing their mindset but asks them to consider the possibility of being mistaken. He also requests a modification of the notion that Christians who disagree with their approach are no better than "useful idiots" of Satan. Bell and Sarfati assure Richard that their reasoning is not merely a rehearsed litany of arguments but a coherent response. They acknowledge that respectful disagreement is possible without attributing ill intent.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Bell and Sarfati address Richard's objections to the article. They clarify the usage of the term "useful idiot" and reiterate that it does not imply alignment with vocal atheists. They affirm their appreciation for scientific knowledge while recognizing its fallibility. They explain their approach to interpreting scripture and assert that a single, rigid interpretation is necessary for effective communication. They defend their position as rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ and emphasize the importance of Scripture as the ultimate authority. They assure Richard that their response is not a mere recitation of arguments but a thoughtful engagement with his concerns.