Intelligent Design Does Not Support Christianity

============= Introduction: ============= I am glad to hear that my opponent was fully informed when instigating this debate. This, however, in no way changes the fact that he has a wholly inaccurate understanding of both Genesis and Christian hermeneutics. ============= Age of the Earth ============= I do indeed contend that Christianity does not teach a 6,000 year old earth. Since it is my opponent who positively asserts that Christianity does teach a literal rendering of the first chapter of Genesis and consequently that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, I encourage him to present his case – as quotes by discredited sophists will not be accepted as substantive. My original argument seems to have been completely ignored by my opponent. The REASON why Genesis 1 does not seem to represent a literal retelling is because the author used a common 7 day literary motif. Moreover, there is a stylistic parallel of the days mentioned, day 1 parallels day 4; day 2 parallels day 5; and day 3 parallels day 6 – leaving the last day to figuratively represent the Sabbath. Furthermore, since even those living during the time of Genesis' authorship knew that the sun was a measurement for days (in terms of day/night and dusk/dawn), so the fact that light was created before its source only serves to show that Genesis 1 was never meant to be taken literally. The original readers would have been aware of the common 7 day motif and also the creatively paralleled days, understanding that the purpose of the story was not to represent HOW God created but THAT God created. Those who argue that the earth is 6,000 years old based on biblical genealogies are following the 17th century archbishop, James Ussher, who used the genealogies in Genesis chapter 5 and 11 to determine that Adam and Eve where created in 4,004 BC. The first assumption that Usher makes is that the genealogies in chapter 5 and 11 are complete – something that would already not be in line with the nature of biblical genealogies. Ancient genealogies, unlike modern genealogies, practiced what is called telescoping. This is where they would leave out names or even entire lineages for the sake of brevity. Moreover, the purpose of ancient genealogies was either familial, legal, or religious. Genealogies for familial reasons were only to show hereditary inheritance. Legal genealogies were used to show hereditary inheritance of particular offices or even land. Lastly, religious genealogies were used to show whether or not one was part of the Levitical or Aronic priesthood. The three listed purposes were concerned more with ancestry than with the actual number of people. The form of the genealogies was largely determined by its function, whether familial, legal, or religious. (http://www.reasons.org...) ============= Intelligent Designer VS YHWH ============= My opponent is playing word games. YHWH = God. I absolutely agree that the Bible asserts theological characteristics of said God. All these characteristics are anthropomorphic and analogical. I agree that the characteristics ascribed to the God of the Bible are NOT supported by intelligent design because intelligent design has no inherent theological assertions. This should not be confused with a concession that ID therefore does not support Christianity. Take this analogy for an example: Imagine that no person in our modern day had ever seen a carrot. Yet there were ancient writings that talked about the existence of carrots, moreover that these carrots tasted good and were very healthy when consumed. Now, over time, new scientific discovery and inquiry found that there were once long and orange roots that grew in the ground. Now this discovery definitely supports the idea that carrots exist, but it does not support whether or not they tasted good or were healthy. That is because the study cannot be extended beyond its claim – its claim being solely an existential one. The carrots are like Christianity. Christianity purports that God exists with certain characteristics, intelligent design supports the notion that God exists, but not the certain characteristics ascribed to said God (though it allows for the possibility of said God having certain characteristics). This does not mean that it does not support Christianity, in that it allows for the possibility of Christianity being true because it supports the existential claim that God exists. My opponent then claims that my argument about Genesis 1 not being literal is self-refuting because, "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." My opponent does not understand biblical hermeneutics. I am not just picking and choosing what is and is not metaphorical – I am, however, looking at the original text, studying its nuances and wordplays, and making an informed analysis of the text, knowing full well that the authors were not limited to ONLY writing literally. The psalms and their poetry, Song of Solomon and the fantastic imagery (not so pretty, however, if taken literally), Jesus and his hyperboles and parables, John and his apocalyptic literary style – the biblical authors were fond of using metaphor, analogy, and other literary tools. There is no GOOD reason to take the bible as wholly metaphorical, there is, however, good reason to take the bible's metaphors as metaphors. The point of Genesis, as I said in my first round, was to merely show that God had created. Intelligent design claims that there must have been an intelligent cause and this is conducive with the Christian claim. ============= Deism/Pantheism vs Theism ============= Intelligent design does support Deism and Theism (not Pantheism, as it is subject to the criticism of infinite regression, a philosophical argument inbuilt in ID). My opponent says that it cannot support theism because theism purports a personal God. I agree that intelligent design does not support the notion that this intelligent cause is personal, but that does not mean that it does not support Christianity. Since ID allows for theism to be true, insofar as it is evidence for the existence of a creator of the universe, it supports it. No one is saying that ID supports Christian Theology. They are saying that it supports the Christian claim that a God exists. Both deism and theism purport that God exist, one makes no claim to the character, the other does – ID supports the claim of both theism and deism, but does not support the characteristic claims of theism. But ID need not support the theology of the Bible (it allows for it to be true however), it need only support the Bibles existential claim – God exists. ============= Conclusion ============= My opponent is not using contemporary scholarship, but rather he is riding the coattails of discredited apologists. My opponent has not succeed in showing that ID does not support Christianity, insofar as Intelligent design (1) allows for the existence of the theological characteristics ascribed to God in the Bible (e.g. loving, good, just and etc), and (2) supports the existential claim in the Bible that God exists. I look forward to my opponent's response.