DSM,

Maxwell and Kelvin grew up at the time of Darwin and opposed him on religious grounds.

"James' (Maxwell) early education was given by his mother, a dedicated Christian, and included studying the Bible. James exceptional memory became apparent at this time when he memorized all of Psalm 119"

Today we know better.

Pericles,
I never claimed that the clear interpretation that James Barr (a distinguished Hebrew scholar) gave to Genesis 1-11 meant that James Barr’s interpreting it as such makes it a fact. I admitted that even Barr himself doesn’t believe it to be fact. What I was saying is that the Hebrew text is quite clear, and its meaning is plain to all concerned.

From what we are both saying, it seems that Hendel also is in agreement with Barr over the three points that Barr detailed.

The overall point that I was making, apparently without contradiction from anyone, is that those passages from Genesis are clear enough in their intended meaning.

It is true that in today’s pluralistic society, many Christians of various shades and leanings believe many weird and wonderful things. This is their freedom. But I suggest that the passages of Genesis are not only clear, but the plain historical interpretation (that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, etc.) represents the standard world view of nearly all Christians up until around the 19th Century.

It was in this type of climate (the one that Shadow Minister has just described) that these greats of history made their breakthrough discoveries.

Along with Maxwell, all of those so far mentioned were men of science and of faith.

None believed in Darwinian evolution (as far as I’m aware. Sorry for my lack of detail, but who these men were, and what these men did, is on the public record. Considering how many have spoken against my position so far in this discussion, I am sure someone will be able to reference and detail the points of Darwinism that these men adhered to, if in fact they did at all.)

Excuse me, Extropian1, the quote you attribute to me was penned by Peter Hume. My post was the one above my signature, not the one below it. Cheers, grim.

Dan,
It’s interesting how you often wait until we need to switch the “Show discussions for articles published” option to “One quarter back” so that your response can’t be seen to be added with the default “One month back” option.

Anyway, it’s good that you still felt you owed Pericles and explanation nevertheless. Maybe now you answer my request for evidence of a young Earth?

Then there’s the big claim that evolution needed a patch and a paint job after Mendel on the other thread along with your claim that evolution makes no sense.

On yet another thread, you made the claim that millions of dollars of tax payers’ money goes to trying to iron out problems with evolution; implying that there’s a desperate attempt by the government to prop up a rickety theory riddled with problems. On this thread, I have also asked that you explain how Creation “scientists” interpret empirical evidence to mean that there is a designer without resorting to the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy or the ‘Argument from Incredulity’ fallacy.

Could you please either back these claims, or retract them?

Thank you.

Funny, I'd noticed that too, AJ Philips.

>>Dan, It’s interesting how you often wait until we need to switch the “Show discussions for articles published” option to “One quarter back”<<

Bound to be coincidence though.

>>Anyway, it’s good that you still felt you owed Pericles and explanation<<

I didn't really get one though, did I?

Just more waffle. And a further ambit claim on what he guesses that other people might have thought. All very pointless.

Seriously, Mr Viljoen, now that your posts are all-but-invisible, you can stop pretending that there is a teeming crowd of Creationists, all responsible for massive leaps in scientific awareness, thanks to their spirituality.

I had promised myself that I wouldn't do your homework for you, but I couldn't resist one last peep.

So I chose the first name on your last list: Dalton.

>>None believed in Darwinian evolution as far as I’m aware<<

That's the first laugh: Dalton died in 1844, some fifteen years before the publication of "Origin of the Species".

He was also a Quaker by birth, and lived for more than twentyfive years with a vicar, "his friend the Rev. W. Johns" as Wikipedia describes him. While that certainly places him in the category "religious", it says nothing about his belief in a young earth.

Your entire argument appears to be based on the premise that "if they read the Bible, they must have taken it at its literal face value".

Given that these folk seem to be highly intelligent individuals, I strongly doubt that. Especially given the total absence of evidence of such beliefs in their work.

Thanks guys. Your second guessing of my timing and movements unveils strange levels of suspicion or mistrust. Are you always this paranoid?

One reason for OLO’s existence is to promote discussion so as to lead to greater common understanding. I’ve tried to be as open as possible. (The only quarterback I’ve heard of is Payton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts.)

AJ,
You ask me for detail on many things. Yet it brings up the same question of mine that you still haven’t answered. If you really want some information and interaction of opinion, then are you in agreement that the experienced campaigners (those who know more about it than you and I) from both the atheist and the creationist camps should debate it when they all come to Melbourne next week? (This is the question in point relating to the original article.)