Here's a perfect example of why Dawkins is not silly enough to be edited to look ignorant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k

More lies from desperate Creationists. Dawkins is explaining Panspermia:

http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/panspermia.htm

Then goes on to say, such an intelligence - that can seed life - may be seen by primitive humans - like Christians - as magical or a deity.

He also stresses, that any such intelligence, being of flying fart with flip flops must indeed only arise via Evolution.

Man - I love how God employs cheats and liars to impart His Dread Sovereign Message.

I read your last couple of posts very carefully, Mr Viljoen. Sadly, I couldn't find much of a connection between what you are now saying, and the key points of our previous discussions. I'd hate to conclude that you were simply indulging in verbal flummery, but that is becoming a distinct possibility.

>>I define a Biblical creationist as someone who accepts Genesis as history, with a relatively young earth, global flood, and all humans descending from Adam and Eve, etc.<<

Yep. Me too.

Which is why I have to disagree completely with your statement:

>>But overall, the claim that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation is easily defensible.<<

Far from it.

All the examples you have presented are, to a greater or lesser extent, of professed Christians. That is, folk who professed a belief in a Christian God, and in religious ritual, and prayer, and attending church (some of them).

What it does not demonstrate is that any of these folk was, as you yourself describe here, a "Biblical creationist".

As you are very well aware, it is entirely possible to a) be religious, b) align your beliefs with Christianity, c) go to church regularly and d) indulge in prayer, without the additional intellectual baggage of believing in a young earth.

This is also puzzling.

You assert that "current Hebrew linguists... accept an historical Genesis"

You justify this with:

>>As I understand, any Hebrew scholar at any mainstream university will tell you that this is what the language of Genesis is attempting to communicate, even if they don’t believe it themselves<<

This is straight from the "answersingenesis" school of thought, that posits: because the language construction indicates a "factual" narrative, it must be describing "facts".

However, there are many "Hebrew linguists" who avoid such simplistic assumptions, and illustrate the sheer complexity of the task of drawing a specific, unique meaning from such an ancient set of texts.

I can recommend to you "The text of Genesis 1-11: textual studies and critical edition" By Ronald S. Hendel, as an illustration of the folly of over-simplification.

Though not remembering everything written of in this topic, I've read every one of the posts. Here, as elsewhere, I've encountered a situation that needs some explanation.

A response from both sides would be welcome.

[a] Religious faith is constantly pandering to science for morsels of scientific confirmation while vilifying it for providing so much that is in conflict with religious faith. Reciprocity has never been a feature of this one-sided "relationship".

[b] Religious faith pleads for a level playing field [mentioned several times in this topic] in the ongoing argument, indicating that it is at the lower end of the field. It seems to me that the faithful, so certain of their rectitude, should be magnanimously offering to level the field for the beleaguered team uneducated in faith.

In both issues the deficiencies of faith in the real world are being tacitly acknowledged by the faithful. By parasitising science and belittling that which is not susceptible of contrivance, by striving for science's imprimatur, they unequivocally acknowledge religious faith's inferiority

Grim writes,
<I don't know why the atheists declined to debate the creationists.>

In fact you do know why.

Creationists are constantly seeking forums to parasitise some of science's standing in society. By atheists/scientists engaging with them, an implied legitimacy is conferred on creationism that is unearned and totally unwarranted.

Their behaviour and attitude toward their host in fact devalues faith.

Pericles,
I still owe you an explanation after our last postings.

“… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”
James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984.

I am not claiming Barr believes Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught. Judging by this, I am guessing Hendel would be included in this.

In previous centuries, this was the standard model accepted among Christians for interpreting history.

You ask me to further justify the claim that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation.

We’ve discussed Boyle (chemistry), Faraday (physics), and Babbage, since you brought those names up first. It was me who suggested Newton (physics). But there’s a pretty impressive list yet to get through.

Chemistry: Dalton, Ramsay
Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow
Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland
Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Maunder
Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz

As far as I understand, these mentioned here believed in a creator God and an historical Genesis.

One could add Maxwell (physics) who openly challenged Darwin, as did Kelvin (physics), and Herschel (astronomy).

As I alluded to above, some in the 19th and 20th Centuries varied from the standard Biblical view of the earth’s age but without accepting evolution, such as Kelvin, Herschel, Agassiz (biology), and Cuvier (geology).

The list is long but could get a lot longer if space permits.

I think that pretty much covers where our interpretations diverge, Mr Viljoen.

>>I am not claiming Barr believes Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew so clearly taught.<<

What Barr is saying is that the writers quite specifically wanted their message to be understood at its face value: 6x24 hour days to create everything, the Flood actually was a Flood and all those begats are "a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story"

Fair enough.

Still doesn't turn it into fact, though.

I suspect that, in a couple of thousand years, scholars will be poring over snippets from our present and making the same judgments as to whether Oliver Stone's movies were documentary, metaphor or allegory. Philologists and linguists will no doubt have great fun finding reasons to support their view.

>>Judging by this, I am guessing Hendel would be included in this.<<

Bad guess.

Hendel himself points out in "The text of Genesis 1-11" that in one version of Genesis (the "G" text"), Methuselah survived the flood by fourteen years.

While it is perfectly acceptable that different versions should record different activities - that is after all the nature of ancient documents - it is equally unacceptable to pick one version, and label all others "false", simply because the one you choose fits your presuppositions.

>>You ask me to further justify the claim that most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation.<<

No, I've given up on that one.

You present no references to back your claims, so I can only assume that you want me to do your homework for you. And since you haven't acknowledged that you were wrong with the last lot, there's hardly an incentive for me to do so, is there?