For example, popular evolution blogger and anti-Christian bigot PZ Myers wrote:
A religion that declares the bible inerrant is not compatible with science, because its followers would have to be idiots.
Now, this statement is not constructed in a way that is logical. It states nothing more that Myers's belief that anyone who believes in an inerrant bible is an idiot. Even if that were true, one could not conclude, as Myers does, that the bible was incompatible with science.
Setting aside Myers's failure to construct rational, self-consistent statements, the more relevant point for today's discussion is that he is willing to call the Roman Catholic Church and all right-of-center Protestants “idiots” rather than admit that an inerrant bible is compatible with science.
It is not just Myers—go to any of the evolution sites and offer an opinion that an inerrant bible is compatible with science, and you’ll face a barrage of attacks.
The interesting part is that, at first glance, you would think they would welcome such pronouncements, even as they privately viewed them as silly. Every scientist who makes the claim of bible-science compatibility—well they could use us (albeit in their mind as useful idiots) to claim, see religion has nothing to fear from science—these scientists and devout Christians see no conflict whatsoever.
However, it is a strategy they just can’t make themselves follow. Why? I can only assume that it is because their hatred for Christianity far outweighs the possible political advantage. Someone like Myers could never say: “What are you worried about? Professor X believes in the compatibility of an inerrant bible and science. Science is not your enemy.” No, to someone like Myers religion must be the enemy. It just has to be. No alliances permitted. He loves being an enemy of religion.
Even with their most trusted Christian ally, Brown Professor Kenneth Miller, you see this tension boil to the surface. For example, you read comments like:
‘“Faith and reason are not only compatible. They are complementary,” testified Ken Miller’See this is where Miller has always gotten lost to me. If you have evidence you don’t really need faith.
Here you see a less virulent form of the same disease. Miller, whom they use as a trophy when it suits them, is still a little bit “icky”. I’m sure they wish he would stick to the script: I’m a famous Brown University Professor, a good Catholic, and I believe in evolution. Even with Miller their visceral dislike for religion is evident, and many will not even allow Miller his mild oath of faith-reason complementarity.
Of course, in this case Miller was spot on. Blind faith is never, ever called for, and “faith” used in the bible is much closer to “live by faith” or “walk the walk” than belief. Jesus forgave a lames man’s sins (an invisible act). If he intended blind faith to be what we had to muster, he’d have stopped there. Instead, he proved himself by healing the man (Matt.9:1-8). Evidence has been provided: now live by faith.
Alas, for the PZ Myers of the world, an inerrant bible is compatible with science. The last conflict of which I am aware was when scientists (including Einstein) argued for a steady state universe, one with an infinite past. The bible clearly argues for a universe that had a beginning.
There is conflict no more. The bible is infallible; Einstein was not.