Intelligent Design Does Not Support Christianity

============== Age of the Earth ============== No, my assertion was not that the calculations were incorrect, but that calculations in general are impossible – insofar as their function does not permit their calculation. Moreover, a literal 6 day creation is absolutely fundamental to my opponent's claim – this claim, unfortunately, was never substantiated beyond a tenuous Dr. Dino quote. Furthermore, my opponent, instead of giving "my" theory the luxury of refutation, he merely seeks to disparage it by assuming it was a theory of my own. Moreover, he assumes that his assumption about Genesis is somehow the default and he need not do any exegesis of his own to support his claim. Not only is this hermenutically biased, it is egregiously incorrect. This theory, though I would love to call it my own, is congenial with most Old Testament scholars. Among them are Abraham Heschel, the renowned Polish Theologian, Howard Macy, George Fox University's own Old Testament Scholar, William Lane Craig, a man whose reputation speaks for itself, and also Ben Witherington III. My opponent's argument can be summed up with the following quote: "If that were the case, it would have simply said that God created the Universe." This screams intellectual ignorance in terms of understanding ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian literary forms. Not only does my opponent's argument reside on a very feeble assumption, but it is blatantly wrong. As was common form during the time Genesis was written, stories were told to illustrate one fundamental truth – in this case, it was that God created. It is VERY safe to conclude that Genesis 1 was NEVER MEANT to me taken literally in that a COMMON 7 day motif was utilized. Moreover, the obvious parallels between the days (mentioned in both my round one and two) illustrates that Genesis one was never intended to be taken as a hyper-literal account of the creation (Here is a link to Genesis one, read the days and see how obvious the parallels are: http://www.biblegateway.com...). ============== Intelligent Design VS YHWH ============== My opponent has made a claim that, when pressed, is clearly not cogent. He tries to create a dichotomy between YHWH and God, as if to show, by juxtaposition, that ID supports the latter but not the former. This is balderdash. Instead, God should be seen as the intelligent cause of the universe. This is possibly YHWH and it can only be possible if ID is true. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to the god of deism as Ubdar. Now, the assumed characteristics of Ubdar are that he is uninvolved, unconcerned, and non-participatory in the universe or earthly matters. The problem is that these traits, like the theological ascriptions of YHWH, are not inherent in the existential claim of ID. If my opponent asserts that ID supports the existence of Ubdar but not the existence of YHWH, then he is either clearly mistaken, or epistemologically biased – neither fair well for him in this debate. ID does not lend credence to the characteristics of either Ubdar or YHWH – but it supports them both because it allows for them to be true by supporting their underlining assertion that God exists. If ID is incorrect (in that there is no intelligent cause) both deism and Christianity are wrong. It seems only fair to say that ID supports Christianity given that Christianity's very validity rests on ID's verity. My opponent has not addressed the most fundamental point that it is only reasonable to compare the existential claim of ID with the existential claim of Christianity (yet he does for pantheism and deism). ID ONLY asserts that an intelligent cause must exist. We must take this claim and compare it to the Christian existential claim that a creator of the universe exists. Since ID does not make any characteristic claims, we cannot compare or expect ID to support certain characteristics aside from existing. Therefore ID supports the Christian claim that a creator of the universe exists and it also supports the possibility of this God having Christian characteristics or deistic characteristics. ============== Deism/Pantheism vs Theism ============== "Christianity = Christian theology. Therefore, you admit that ID does not support Christianity." A non-Christian telling a Christian what Christianity is ,will not do. My opponent's assertion lacks evidence, I shall, therefore, disregard it without evidence. "If God is discovered, and it turns out to be an intelligent Universe or Zeus, is it still a Christian claim? No." If it turns out that the intelligent cause was the universe itself or Zeus, then it will not longer support deism OR theism. As it stands, ID only makes an existential claim and therefore it is only fair to compare it to the existential claims of Deism and Christianity. Both require an intelligent cause, therein finding support in ID. ID, by virtue of NOT making any characteristic claims, allows for the possibility of Theism to be true – a possibility that would not be there if ID was indeed incorrect. But it is no use in creating a false analogy and saying, "SEE! If it did not support Christianity then would it support Christianity!? NO. Therefore it does not support Christianity." If my opponent finds such a claim reasonable, than I will let him rest easy on his comfortable bed of straw. ============== Conclusion ============== My opponent has not supported his exegetical and hermeneutical stance on the first chapter of Genesis. When pressed, his assertions remained assertions – growing evermore hollow as the rounds progressed. His reasoning was shown fallacious as he unfairly compares deism, theism and pantheism – revealing an epistemological bias that should not be tolerated. He maintained that an existential claim needs to support something beyond the existential claim in Christianity in order to support Christianity – which is outreagiously flawed becuase ID allows for the possibility of Christianity to be true (something that would be impossible if the theory happens to be incorrect). I cannot see how any person could support the affirmation of the resolution in light of the debate here. Accolades to my opponent! InquireTruth