Atheist Misrepresentation

Buon giorno. Recently, I had yet another encounter with a non-thinking atheist who defended illogic with more illogic ("It's not a genetic fallacy if it's true", which was not only laughable, but begs the question). Further, he portrayed atheists as noble people who just happen to believe differently and do not bother anyone. I've got some bad news for you, Sunshine, that's a lie. If it was simply a matter of intellect, they would most likely be confident in their worldview and not feel the need to troll, attack and misrepresent Christianity, capice? Are they just excited about their upcoming atheist holiday (April 1?) I doubt it. This nonsense is ongoing.

New Scientist left the science behind and went on an anti-Christian and anti-creationist jihad. The following article is part of a series of refutations of their attacks. This is typical of people who rely on quote mining, taking out of context (including historical, cultural and linguistic), relying on misotheist sites like "I hate God and I'll do anything to justify it and you can copy-n-paste my bad thinking instead of thinking for yourself dot com", and doing basic misrepresentation of the Bible.

Creationist myths

Evolution must be wrong because the Bible is inerrant

This argument is undermined by the hundreds of errors and inaccuracies and contradictions found in Bible. It is anything but ‘inerrant’.

A few creationists are honest enough to admit that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is irrelevant as far as they are concerned: as it contradicts the ‘Word of God’, it simply has to be wrong. Some Christians regard the text of the Bible as literally true or, to use their term, as ‘inerrant’. If people reject evolution on this basis, it is only fair to ask whether this belief stands up.

The New Scientist article opens with a poorly-supported summary, two generalised statements (few? some?—How many? Which ones?), and a broad-brushed stroke which disparages the ‘remaining’ creationists, implying by extension a majority of creationists are dishonest.

It continues in apparent confusion, where the author appears to be unable to differentiate between inerrancy of Scripture and ‘literal truth’, a subject we covered extensively in Should Genesis be taken literally? (1993) and Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?

Whichever translation of the Bible you look at it is not hard to find errors. The texts are full of internal contradictions as well as historical and scientific inaccuracies.

With this next statement, we receive our first clues, indicating why the author is confused regarding Biblical accuracy. Firstly, the statement regarding ‘translation of the Bible’ ignores the fact that the most prevalent understanding of inerrancy relates not to English translations, but to the original, inspired manuscripts—see, for example, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with exposition. Secondly, the author is using and supporting Wikipedia as respectable and factual source material; certainly New Scientist must realise synthesis is only as good as the source material it uses.

You can read the rest of this discussion of their transparent, simplistic attacks at "Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions, Mangling misotheists’ ignorant attacks on the Bible" here.