Cheng an Embarrassment

Gordon, our old sparring partner, wrote somewhat recently in praise of Michael Ruse (see 'Dawkins an Embarrassment', Media Watch, The Briefing, 7th June 2007). Gordon reports that Ruse is convinced that many evolutionists are just as “religiously ridiculous in their zeal as the most swivel-eyed creationist could ever be.” Whether these are Ruse’s or Gordon’s exact words is irrelevant because Gordon obviously sympathises fully with the sentiment behind them. Nothing new here.

What should be embarrassing and cause for concern for the Sydney Diocese is that one of their ministers would then go on to misrepresent his supposed brothers and sisters in Christ by manufacturing an outright lie against them. If this isn’t in itself a travesty of what it means to be a leader in the Church then think about the flow-on effect for those who, as a result of reading his mendacious piffle, are drawn away from the historically orthodox truth. (Hopefully, Gordon has become so obnoxious that very few people would bother and that it’s only the sycophantic tare of the diocese who champion his miscreant ravings. Maybe little or no harm done!) What did our Lord say about a millstone, brother?

The offending paragraph is the following:
“Most creationists and evolutionists tend to distract themselves away from considering the man Jesus Christ, the only son of God, by turning to debate minutiae of sub-amoebic proportions. Small things are not unimportant, but when they stop us thinking about the gospel, they start to matter out of proportion to their size.”
First thing that needs pointing out is Gordon’s hyper-hubristic and omnisciently use of “most”. Well, even I, a now very much long-in-the-tooth creationist, have not met or read “most creationists”, and so I cannot conclude that Gordon would have super-humanly managed the impossible.

But what makes Gordon’s words so foolish is that every – let me repeat – every, creationist I’ve met or read, at some time, somewhere, will over and over again raise the absolute importance of the Gospel and the world’s need for Christ.

London to a brick, Gordon would never have heard of A.E. Wilder-Smith’s pioneering work, let alone read any of it. Wilder-Smith was quite arguably more instrumental for putting the creationist project on firm footing than any other person before or after. Contrary to Gordon’s insane libel, this triple awarded PhD scientist (sorry, Gordon, how many scientific PhDs have you earned?) never stopped talking or writing about the need for all men and women to know about the redemptive work of Christ’s death on the cross and his resurrection.

But if Gordon were an honest man and had wanted to know what creationists actually believed he would have at least browsed the world’s leading creationist magazine (published here in Oz!) and seen that creationists do raise the issue of the Gospel even in an ostensibly scientific publication.

Gordon is manifestly a liar or a fool, but not both. His own article clearly demonstrates this.