Intelligent Design Does Not Support Christianity

I will try to be as succinct as possible in my argument. To be honest, I find GeoLaureate8's argument to be more of a misunderstanding than a substantive argument. =============== Contention 1: Christianity does not teach a 6000 year old earth =============== My opponent argues that ID does not support Christianity because Christianity makes claims that are inconsistent with science. The most important thing to point out is that, even if GeoLaureate9 was correct about Christianity, it would not mean that Intelligent Design does not support Christianity. Central to Christianity is the notion that God exists – ID is supportive of this basic notion. Moreover, "Christianity" does NOT teach that the earth is 6,000 years old. Even if a strict literal translation of the book of Genesis (something not congenial with contemporary Christian scholarship) was taken, there are no good reasons to believe that the universe was created in 6,000 years. There is no mention of this number in the Bible, nor does a comprehensive study of the Bible's genealogies lead us to this number (Usher's bunk genealogical addition in the middle-ages notwithstanding). Furthermore, the beginning chapter of Genesis was never meant to be taken literally, as is obvious with the creative 7 day literary motif. There is a tripartite division in the first chapter, in which days 1-3 directly parallel days 4-6. Unless God was creating in a way that precisely resembled Mesopotamian stylistic and literary usage, then it is most likely that Genesis 1 is analogical, in that its primary purpose is to refute the growing idea that the universe always existed by proclaiming that God created. Taken in this sense, the account is merely that God has created the universe – the universe could be billions of years old and still consistent with this basic proclamation. =============== Contention 2: ID's support is not mutually exclusive =============== My opponent, somewhat tangentially, concludes that ID supports Deism and Pantheism, as if this somehow shows that it could not possibly support Christianity as well. Since all three purport, in some sense, an intelligent designer - be it a personal or non-personal entity – then ID supports all three concepts. My opponent's case is NOT that ID is non-supportive of Christianity, but that science itself is non-supportive of Christianity. But the basic concept, that the universe requires intelligent cause, can only support the Christian hypothesis that an intelligent deity exists, insofar as ID is an existential claim, not a theological one. My opponent is essentially saying that the existential claim inherent in ID, is non-supportive of the theological concepts within Christianity. Well of course its not, why would it be? There are no theological claims inherent in ID, only an existential claim. Therefore, it is only reasonable to compare the existential claim inherent in ID and the existential claim inherent in Christianity. ID makes one claim, an intelligent designer exists – it makes no claim to the character or quality of this designer. This basic claim is absolutely consistent with the existential claim inherent in Christianity – God exists. Of course ID does not prove that this God is loving, great, or mono, but this does not change the fact that it IS supportive. =============== Conclusion: =============== I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: Genesis 1