Intelligent Design Does Not Support Christianity

I'd like to clarify though, that there was no misunderstanding when formulating my argument. ========== Age of the Earth ========== My opponent contends that Christianity does not teach a 6,000 year old earth. The Bible does not give a specific number, but Christian apologetics "derive their range of figures using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible" [1] According to creation "scientist" and Bible expert, Kent Hovind, you must absolutely believe in young earth creationism if you have read and understood the Bible. Most Biblically based estimates of the earth's beginning have been around the year 4,000 B. C. [2] Another point to bring up is that if the Universe were 14 billion years old under a Christian perspective, it would be a ludicrous notion. The Bible starts with Adam and Eve in the beginning, and then, what? A 14 billion year gap until the Bible picks up on the story again? Why wouldn't the Bible mention what happened during the time between Genesis and Babylon? It is understood that the earth is young under a Christian perspective based on Biblical chronology. =================== Intelligent Designer vs. Yahweh =================== My opponent also asserts that central to Christianity is the notion that God exists. This is completely false. Central to Christianity is the notion that Yahweh exists, including all of the attributes given to him by the Bible. Yahweh is a specific being with specific characteristic traits. Intelligent Design does not support any of this, hence the resolution. "The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. " - Richard Dawkins The above statement makes it clear that if there were an intelligent cause of the Universe, it could not possibly be Yahweh. Intelligent Design is a scientific conjecture, therefore, because Genesis is inconsistent with science, ID does not support Christianity. (I know that ID being scientific is controversial, but it is not a theologically derived argument. It is theorized through scientific reasoning and observation. ) Also, even if ID was not considered scientific, it still contradicts Christianity because it allows for all the scientific truths such as the age of the Universe being 14 billion years old. The Genesis of 6,000 years ago clearly contradicts this. Christianity forces many scientific truths to be dismissed. The story in Genesis =/= Intelligent Design theory. My opponent tried to avoid this argument by claiming that Genesis was never meant to be taken literally. As many people who have argued theology know, that is an unsound argument. You can't pick and choose parts of the Bible to be metaphorical or literal. You can just as well claim the entire book is metaphorical, thus discrediting it completely. My opponent concludes that Genesis is merely suggesting that God created the Universe. Of course, though, Genesis is not just merely suggesting that. Genesis is suggesting the characterized being, Yahweh, created the Universe in exactly the way it describes. ========================== Deism / Pantheism vs. Theism ========================== {*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. . .. 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. *} I concluded that ID only supports Deism and Pantheism. This statement excludes Theism which entails a personal, characteristic deity, i. e. Christianity. I also asserted that the only two philosophies that ID -does- support, clearly contradict Christian theology. My opponent asserts that the basic concept that the universe requires an intelligent cause can only support the Christian hypothesis that an intelligent deity exists. I rebute that because intelligent design does not necessarily require a deity. The intelligent cause could merely be evidence that the Universe itself is intelligent, which is the Pantheistic notion. And laughingly, based on the account in Genesis, Yahweh was far from intelligent seeing as he didn't understand basic scientific concepts an 8 year old understands, i. e. creating light before creating light emitting stars or separating light from dark. My opponent does however, rightfully assert that ID is an existential claim, not a theological one. Though, this argument supports my position, not his, and he admits that as stated here: "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. " {*This basic claim is absolutely consistent with the existential claim inherent in Christianity – God exists. *} No, that's Deism. That is my point completely. Intelligent Design only goes as far as Deism (or Pantheism) and stops there. Christians, when in debate, tend to use Intelligent Design to support their theology, but make the erroneous mistake of jumping from Deism to Theism. This is one of the main reasons why I brought up this argument. It is wrong for Christians to make the false equation that since they can provide and argument for Deism, that it also supports Christian theology. ========= Conclusion ========= In conclusion, my opponent consistently claimed that central to Christianity is the notion that God exists. I demonstrated to the contrary, that it is exclusively a Deistic or Pantheistic claim, not a Theistic one. My opponent even agreed that ID is an "existential claim," not a theological claim. Therefore, Intelligent Design does not support Christian theology. [1] [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...