AJ,
You have jumped the gun a bit.

I have met some of the contributors to creation.com. However, my main relationship with them is, like you, that I read the website. I’ve always found it accurate, informative and enlightening. (Thanks for bringing it to people’s attention.)

Am I informing creation.com? No, I’ve barely had any communication with them. They don’t need my input. Many of the regular contributors to creation.com have PhDs in fields relevant to evolution, and their knowledge of current science goes well beyond mine.

If you see anything there in need of correction, they would welcome you writing to them. As any good scientist, they know of the need to make updates and amendments.

Quotes can be revealing. It is important that they are accurate. It is also good to consider their context. So I commend you for having researched those quotes. (And as for sons, they usually follow their fathers. So if your son is like you, and was ever confronted by something that challenged his usual precepts, I’d imagine he’d research it properly rather than run out of the room. After research, even if you still don’t agree with something, at least then you’d know why. I’d definitely encourage my son to follow that practice.)

Thanks for again highlighting what was written by Richard Lewontin. It was an amazing admission of philosophical bias.

I think you’ve misunderstood the significance of the passages from Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’. People highlighted it, not because it makes Darwin seem without compassion, but to show how closely Darwin’s ideas lend themselves to social Darwinism and its consequent abuses.

Thanks for your opinion on the movie ‘Expelled’. I still think the film was a hoot. It was well researched, and cleverly communicated some of the important issues going on here. It had a great reaction.

As for your other questions about the Himalayas, etc., if you really want some information and interaction of opinion, then you might be in agreement with me that the big boys should debate it when they all come to Melbourne in March.

You have to admit, though, all those sudden additions and alterations to the creation.com web site are remarkably coincidental, are they not, Mr Viljoen?

>>I have met some of the contributors to creation.com... Am I informing creation.com? No, I’ve barely had any communication with them<<

So, you have met the folks involved, and have been in communication with them. When you next have a chat with them, you might point out the remarkably flimsy evidence that characterises their website.

"It should thus not be surprising, although it is for many people, that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive<<

I only briefly researched a couple - using only creationist input - but found their "evidence" lacked substance.

The closest Boyle gets to creationism is that he was a "a Bible-believing Christian".

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i1/chemistry.asp

Similarly, Meadows reporting on Faraday stated "He doesn’t mention it explicitly, but this favorable view of science could only have been derived from a commitment to the Biblical doctrine of creation"

"Could only have been?" Surely, that is mere speculation?

It even led to the question "why are references to God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, creation, or any other Biblical theme so rare in Faraday’s scientific writings?". Instead of simply pointing out that religion and science are entirely separate issues, they blamed his reticence on Faraday's personal sect, the Sandemanians..."To what extent was Faraday influenced by his closed-door, uninvolved church?"

Charles Babbage, too, turns out to be an Intelligent Designer, rather than a creationist.

"Babbage strongly supported the pre-Darwinian belief in Natural Theology, the proposition... that design in nature demands a Designer"

http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_3.htm

What he clearly didn't believe in was Creationism.

"To Babbage, the existence of fossils and geological strata provided a clear, unmistakeable record of vast ages of time that was so obvious, one would have to make leave of his senses to deny it."

Creationists seem to rely upon sleight-of-hand (there, it's that "colourful adjective" again) to make any kind of case for their beliefs.

An atheist/creationist debate wouldn't even be entertaining. Merely embarrassing.

Pericles,
I’m glad that you too have discovered the creation.com website. It’s becoming a popular destination for OLO readers.

I’ve had the pleasure to meet some of the contributors to the creation.com website when they have come to Melbourne to do public presentations. But no, I am not their source of information. As I said previously, they don’t need my input. Their numbers include some highly qualified research scientists.

And as I said, it is good if they often edit and update their website. It shows they're on the ball. They’re open to input and correction.

My only correspondence I remember having with them was once writing a query to the editor of their print magazine (not the website), and once I submitted a short article. With the query, they clarified their position without changing anything. And with the article, they didn’t print it, saying it wasn’t what they were wanting at the time.

While we’re talking about them, they will be holding a public presentation here in Melbourne on the same weekend as the Atheist Global Convention. One of the presenters will be Dr Jonathan Sarfati, the author of ‘Refuting Evolution’, possibly the world’s best selling creationist book. I believe in March he will be releasing his next book, ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution’.

So I’m guessing the offer to debate still stands.

You raise the issue of whether creationists can justify their claim that the founders of most modern scientific disciplines were creationists.

By your own admission, Boyle (chemistry) was a Bible believing Christian. Creation is detailed on page 1 of the Bible.

Similarly, Faraday (electromagnetism) was a strong believer and church elder. I doubt Faraday was ever persuaded by Darwin’s writings (ball’s in your court).

To be sure, Babbage (early computing pioneer) was not a biblical creationist, but still a creationist in a broad sense (intelligent design).

This list could get very long, very quickly.

The point here is that Christian faith is no barrier to good science; at least it wasn’t to the founders of most scientific disciplines.

Maybe, Dan, what it shows is that otherwise intelligent and rational people suspend their analytical thought processes when it comes to 'religion', and the backbone of 'religion' takes over...'faith'?

Once 'faith' kicks in, there is no room for questioning. The D9 blade pushes reason aside, and the tracks grind it in the dirt.

But in these people, I suspect they simply kept their science brain and the 'faith' brain apart from each other, preventing the 'faith' side from intruding at all in what they were doing.

After all, why would there be a need to question anything if it is all laid out already?

There is no need to seek anything at all in the world of science, if you have 'faith'.

So, perhaps their 'faith' was never quite as strong as some here would like to believe?

"Discovered", Mr Viljoen?

>>I’m glad that you too have discovered the creation.com website. It’s becoming a popular destination for OLO readers.<<

It is a popular destination for creationists, so by definition becomes part of one's research.

In exactly the same way, surely, that http://www.darwiniana.org/ is a highly active bookmark on your own browser?

That would be right, wouldn't it?

By the way, I am genuinely sure it was coincidence. There's no need to defend yourself so earnestly...

>>no, I am not their source of information... they don’t need my input... My only correspondence I remember having with them was once writing a query to the editor... and once I submitted a short article.<<

It's OK, I believe you. Relax. Any further protestations will, however, be taken as a sign of a guilty conscience.

Now, don't try to be cute.

>>Boyle (chemistry) was a Bible believing Christian. Creation is detailed on page 1 of the Bible.<<

You would have us believe that all "Bible-believing Christians" are creationists? That's pretty much of an insult to the millions of Christians who are not Creationists, but "believe" the Bible.

Of which it would appear there are quite a few

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3445

If Boyle had been described as a "Bible literalist", I'd be entirely disposed to accept that he was a creationist.

And this is just silly.

>>I doubt Faraday was ever persuaded by Darwin’s writings (ball’s in your court).<<

You can doubt all you wish, but that will not make it so. There is no evidence that Faraday even read Origin of the Species. It wasn't published until after his retirement, and there is no record of his opinion. If he even had one.

>>To be sure, Babbage (early computing pioneer) was not a biblical creationist, but still a creationist in a broad sense (intelligent design).<<

Oh, great. So someone who states categorically that he agrees with fossil records showing the earth's age, can still be a creationist?

>>This list could get very long, very quickly.<<

Given the laxity of your definitions, you would probably also be able to stretch it to include Dawkins.

Pericles,
I don’t know why you would expect me to feel guilty.

I’m guilty of some kind of association? If that’s your accusation, that I associate myself with those of creation.com, then I happily plead guilty.

If your argument is otherwise, could you make it clear, because it’s really lacking substance.

Similarly, many of the founders of modern scientific disciplines were happy to associate themselves with the Bible. As we have already discussed, for people like Boyle, Faraday, Newton, (maybe not so clear with Babbage), their faith was not a side issue, or compartmentalised into the back of their brain, as Blue Cross suggests. They were quite earnest about it.

I agree definitions are important. I’m happy to work some out with you. But many times on these pages, I have had it suggested that intelligent design is just a form of creationism. They usually say ID is ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo’. If you want to believe they are totally different beasts, then I think you’ll find yourself out of step with people like AJPhilips.

I understand that many Christians today don’t accept an historical Genesis. Yet this was the standard interpretation given by all scholars, including Jesus, the New Testament writers, virtually everyone up until the times of Lyell and Darwin, current Hebrew linguists, and any ten year old kid who ever read it.

Blue Cross asks, “Why would there be a need to question anything if it is all laid out already?” An interesting question. I might ask why should scientists expect to discover an order in the universe if they did not first presuppose that it had had order imposed onto it by an orderly creator?

Well, at least this is how many of the founders of modern science thought about it. For example, the inventor of the theory of planetary orbits, Johannes Kepler, considered himself ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’.

As I said, this list of these scientific pioneers could get long, very quickly. A proper understanding of God and theology does not inhibit research, rather (historically) it has inspired it.

Michael Viljoen