I think these 'honest questions' have been addressed; time and time again.
So long as the Creationist side of the debate relies on 'faith' (a belief system by definition without a logical or provable basis) there is no possibility of a rational debate.

I don't know why the atheists declined to debate the creationists. Perhaps it would be interesting.

However I think it would be fair to expect the creationists first to show reason to think that they have understood, and can answer the arguments put forward by Dawkins in The God Delusion, other than by endlessly begging the question, which is what the creationists have offered, so far as I can tell.

For example, the existence of complex life forms, or the origin of life itself, does not justify the conclusion that life must have been created by an intelligent personable deity, let alone that the book of Genesis provides any scientific explanation of the phenomena of life.

As Dawkins notes, appeal to an intelligent designer is no explanation at all. Quite apart from the fact that there's no more evidence for "God" than there is for the magic teapot or the invisible pink unicorn, the entire theistic explanation *increases* the complexity of the phenomena requiring explanation, so it is hard to see how this could satisfy anything other than an irrational standard.

Dawkins notes that the God of the Old Testament is a nasty piece of work. Yet do you deny it? Jesus is supposed to represent a new Covenant, but no-one ever claimed that the God Jesus covenants for is a different theistic person than the God of the Old Testament. That being so, how can anyone justify worshipping such a patently immoral being?

The whole belief system motivating the objections of the creationists is so jumbled, so incoherent, so circular, and so irrelevant to the biological issues, that I would certainly forgive any biologist, in his capacity as a biology, for passing on the debate. Whether we should expect a higher standard of tolerance from atheists, in their capacity as atheists, is doubtful.

The reason the evolutionary scientist won't debate scientist who believe in creation is the exact reason that gw alarmist would not debate 'skeptics'. 'The science is settled' in the dogmatic unscientific view of the evolutionary scientist. The dogmas of evolution are no more evident than at our universities,

Congratulations on a very neat piece of sophistry, Mr Viljoen.

So beautifully written.

But even your nicely-crafted sentences and rhetorical flourishes cannot completely hide the threadbare nature of the arguments they are designed to sustain.

“...secondary education, where topics such as politics, sex-education, and religion conveniently couldn’t find space within the curriculum”

“Conveniently”, Mr Viljoen?

You don't seriously believe that high schools should venture, boots and all, into these contentious arenas?

Some do, of course. The ones that are in a position to respect the abilities of their students to reason intelligently for themselves, and not simply parrot what they may have heard at home. But quite frankly, for most it would be a pointless and frustrating exercise for all concerned.

“So the atheists and the creationists, the two philosophical straight shooters, have avoided the showdown at sunset... We have a feel for a contest: Wimbledon, footy finals, Test Match bat against ball. We’re a little suspicious about this win on a technicality”

That is, I'm afraid, a purely artificial suspicion, manufactured specifically for this occasion.

No-one expects to go to the MCG to watch Collingwood play Leyton Hewitt, or Ricky Ponting's team play Melbourne Storm.

Hence no-one is at all suspicious when Atheists choose to restrict their contests to players in the same League. No-one can win an argument between science and faith, in the same way that no-one can “win” when a team of basketballers comes up against a water polo team.

It is a nonsense argument. I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr Viljoen is smart enough to realize this, but just likes playing word-games with us.

And this old chestnut.

“For scientific pioneers such as Isaac Newton, it was integrated into their thinking. 'The most beautiful system of the sun, planet and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and domination of an intelligent and powerful Being.'”

Really, Mr Viljoen. For shame!

However spiritual Mr Newton was, he allowed none of it to infect his scientific endeavours.

As well you know.

runner
Can you honestly say that the following method is scientific: see complex phenomenon requiring explanation --> assume explanation is creation by God as described in scripture?

But isn't that what the supposed scientific method of the creationists boils down to? It is nothing but assuming what is in issue, which is circular argument, which is fallacious, which is irrational.

Come on, let's be honest: it's not science at all.

It's no more valid than for me to explain the beautiful colouring of seahorses by saying they are like that because Poseidon made them like that.

" He squarely draws battle lines in front of his adversaries such as intelligent design proponent Philip Johnson, who says, “God is our true Creator. I am not speaking of a God who is known only by faith and is invisible to reason, or who acted undetectably behind some naturalistic evolutionary process that was to all appearances mindless and purposeless. That kind of talk is about the human imagination, not the reality of God. I speak of a God who acted openly and who left his fingerprints all over the evidence."

Carl Weiland should elaborate on his assertion above before Dawkins should bother to waste his time.