A response to a critic

Over a creation.com, I found that the proprietors of the website had published a response to a critic's interaction with my recent article. Basically, they said all I'd have wanted to say and more. Their response includes a very useful clarification on the matter of Scripture's perspicuity. The critic's question basically boiled down to: "since our interpretations of the Bible are fallible, just like the contemporary scientific consensus over Darwinism can be fallible, does that make the interpretation of the Bible's account as serious history any more reliable an opinion that that of theistic evolutionists who prefer to prioritise Darwinian science?" The response is here.