I would consider most of whom you call "heretics" among modern Jews to still be Jews, as I would consider Protestants to still be Christians. However, when saying that all Jews are creationist, it creates circular reason to anathematize (OK, that's a Christian term, but at least it beats "excommunicated" :^D) all Jews who aren't creationist.
We seem to be having difficulty communicating due to a difference in how we define our terms. A "Jew" is anyone born to a Jewish mother (regardless of belief or lack thereof) or anyone who converts Halakhically to Judaism. If an atheist, a Qara'ite, a "Hebrew chr*stian," a self-hating renegade, ad nauseum, was born to a Jewish mother he is a Jew. Period.
However, not all Jews practice Talmudic Judaism. Only "Orthodox Judaism" is actually Talmudic Judaism. "Reform-," "Conservative-," and "Reconstructionist Judaism" are not Judaism at all. Their members, provided they were born to Jewish mothers, are all Jews but they are not "Talmudic Jews" (ie, practitioners of Talmudic Judaism). And how could anything else be the case? "Reform Judaism" began as a rejection of the Talmud and a retention only of the Written Torah (a heresy known as "Qara'ism"). Now they have rejected the Written and Oral Torahs even though they study the Talmud academically. They may be Jews (which depends on the Jewishness of their mothers), but they are not "Talmudic" or "Rabbinic Jews" because they do not practice genuine "Talmudic" or "Rabbinic Judaism." A Jew who rejects even a single word of the Holy Torah as being from Heaven remains a Jew, but he is a heretic. Unfortunately, Catholicism has so bought into the modernist academic mindset that they do not recognize that such beliefs are heresy for Judaism. Besides . . . do you really think any group that ordains women "rabbis" is "Talmudic???"
I hope this clarifies your questions on the point of the difference between Jewish identity and Jewish religion.
It is my understanding that there is some disagreement among Orthodox Jews about the Chronology, but it's also my vague understanding that even the concept of "Orthodox" presumes a fairly literalist belief system. However, if I were brought up Orthodox, yet came to my conclusions about Creationism, I would like to think I wouldn't be regarded as a heretic.
For some reason I am having difficulty making myself understood. My initial post was not about the Six Days of Creation at all but about the Jewish chronology of history which doesn't even begin until the Sixth Day! The arguments we have been having back and forth on this thread have not been about creation vs. evolution but whether or not this 5766-year chronology is true history or (G-d forbid!) mythology. I explicitly stated that Dr. Schroeder is an evolutionist (and there are Orthodox Jews, including Orthodox rabbis, who hold the same position). However (as I keep trying to point out) this is not really scientific evolutionism at all, since true scientific evolutionism rejects Noah's Flood and dismisses the entire first eleven chapters of Genesis as absolute mythology. Thus Orthodox Jewish evolutionists have a consistency problem shared by no other Theistic evolutionists on earth: they listen to science for only the first five days of creation and then stop doing so for purely dogmatic reasons. Now people like myself are consistently literal and consistently reject the words of "science" on the issue of how the universe and everything in it first came into existence. Scientific evolutionists (whether atheists or chr*stians) consistently accept the words of "science" on all these issues (the chr*stians merely reducing the disputed stories to didactic parables). Both these latter two positions are consistent. But there is something maddenlingly inconsistent about being open-minded for only one chapter and then switching to "fundamentalist dogmatist," which is what Orthodox Jewish evolutionists have to do in order to avoid heresy. The only reason I even brought up the issue of Darwin was as a qal vachomer argument: if we are going to stop our ears to science when it tells us the first twenty generations of the world are mythology and that there was no Flood, then what is the point of listening to science for a brief period then suddenly stopping?
I don't know if I finally got my point over, but I sure tried. I don't know what more I can say.
Now, if you want to agree with Dr. Schroeder, fine and dandy, but to agree with him you will have to become a literalist the moment Adam is created in the text, and you will certainly have to accept Noah's Flood!
I will briefly touch on two other issues you raised. With regard to the claim of Biblical criticism that the Torah was only formalized at a much later date I must once again urge you to read the approppriate article at Aish. However, this question also impinges on the question of "palaeo-Hebrew" (Ketav `Ivrit) vs. the supposedly Aramaic-derived alphabet used now (Ketav 'Ashurit). This latter issue is too complicated for me to explicate here. I suggest you either correspond with an Orthodox rabbi on this subject or else read the material in the back of Rabbi Munk's book The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet, available at ArtScroll and perhaps from an Orthodox Jewish acquaintance.
As to my identity, I am a Ben Noach, as are you. HaShem has divided the human race into two groups: Benei Yisra'el (those born to Jewish mothers or who have converted Halakhically to Judaism) and Benei Noach (everyone else). Benei Yisra'el are mankind's priesthood ('Eretz Yisra'el being the "sacristy") and are bound by the entire Torah. Everyone else make up mankind's "laity" and are bound by the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah. This is the one true religion for all non-Jews. However, be aware of one thing: to be a truly observant Noahide one must accept the Seven Commandments not on account of their rationality but explicitly on the authority of HaShem and the Torah He gave Israel at Sinai. Absent this belief one is not truly an observant Noachide. This point is important in our day because it is becoming fashionable for rationalist types like deists and eighteenth century style unitarians to call themselves "Noachides." They are only Noachides Halakhically because they are non-Jews but they are giving the world a terribly distorted picture of Noachism by conflating it with a purely rationalist "monotheistic" ethical system divorced from the Revelation at Sinai (which is often coupled with the "revelations" claimed by other religions).
I've done my dangdest these things, dangus. I apologize if I have not succeeded.
>> However, not all Jews practice Talmudic Judaism. Only Orthodox are...<<
Apparently I've accidentally hit on a term when all I meant was an adjective... By it, I meant those Jews who define their religious identity, regardless how observant or literalist they are, by the Talmud, as opposed to those who would say, "Huh? Talmud? What's that?" But, yes, I think I understand you crystal clear...
...I knew the issue was the counting of the year, but in some uses I wanted to include those who don't count the years the same to still be regarded as strict literalists... In other words, given that you don't consider Judaism to include non-literalists, I still was meaning to include observant Jews, regardless of how they count the years.
>> if we are going to stop our ears to science when it tells us the first twenty generations of the world are mythology and that there was no Flood, then what is the point of listening to science for a brief period then suddenly stopping? <<
Well, those Christians, whom I rather agree with in this broad sense, who view the first 11 chapters of Genesis as being in a different literary sense than most of the rest of the Pentateuch/Torah, draw a distinction based on, of course, writing style, and a supposition of what seems to be likely the work of a witness. Any chance there is some other line, slightly earlier in the bible that I cannot discern? Maybe, for instance, the establishment of the Hebrew language? (I am aware some believe the Hebrew language to be the tongue of angels, but at least Saul of Tarsis, seems to think that there exists other angelic tongues.) (Disregard if the link addresses this; I will read it.)
I don't think you've been ambiguous or confusing... I may be flat out incorrect about your meaning, but I am not puzzled, even if I should be :^).
Besides being Ben Noach, can you tell me a little about what faith it is you have? (Feel free to FReep me, if you'd like to keep it private for whatever reason.) You certainly have aroused my curiosity. I certainly will never leave the graces of the sacraments in the Catholic church, but I've always felt that Christians can never understand their own faith until they understand Judaism, and I am curious how you came to your seemingly very first-person beliefs about Judaism without being Jewish yourself.