CJ Morgan,
I’m sorry for saying that you hold Wiki as authoritative. But looking again at your post, that’s the way it reads. So thanks for clarifying. I’m kind of relieved that you don’t hold Wikipedia up as an authority.

Oliver,
No Christian anywhere takes all of the Bible literally.

Christians by and large are fully appreciative that the Bible is rich with literary genre (including history, poetry, prohecy, law, letters, etc.) and contains grammatical devices such as, parables, metaphors, similes, hyperbole, etc.

If you know of any Christian that takes all of the Bible literally, then please introduce them to me, as I’ve never met one.

Pericles,
Thanks for your kind words. I’m glad someone appreciates my writing.

Rhian,
The issue is right here, ‘evidence for evolution does discredit ID’. If the one discredits the other, then they both must be interacting on the same philosophical and logical plane. You say evidence for one is supportive of one theory in preference to the other. Therefore we must be able to measure and evaluate the scientific evidence agaisnt them both.

But I feel I’m banging my head agaisnt a wall here. You and I see things very differently. It is difficult finding common ground for communication between we two. As you say, our definitions (or perhaps worldviews) are rather different.

You say evidence for your favoured position is overwhelming. I’m rather underwhelmed by it. And there are large sections of the community that remain likewise unconvinced.

-

I like you’re your explanation regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs. However I think it could have been constructed better. If it was me putting it together, I might have said something like this:

Why did the dinosaurs become extinct? A) A giant meteor hit the earth wiping them out. B) A giant meteor didn’t hit the earth, so it must have been something else.

What evidence would we look for to confirm or deny the position?

There’s another suggestion often been floated, that all human life was wiped out a few thousand years ago by an enormous flood. And that all human life that we now know has descended from the few that survived that flood.

I’ll suggest some alternatives. A) A huge flood once covered the earth. B) There was never a huge flood that covered the earth.

What evidence would we look for to confirm or deny the position?

Now, in your opinion, are these two positions (the meteor dinosaur theory & the people near-extinction flood theory), and the nature of investigation surrounding them, different in any manner? And if so how?

I know we could argue for eons about the details of the findings, but my question is whether or not it is theoretically possible to conduct scientific investigation on either, neither, or both of these?

davidf, "there's no reason to take the Bible as more authoritative than the Tripitaka, Book of Mormon, the Koran or any other scripture."

Apparently, "It depends on the cultural influences we are exposed to."

So, cultural influence counts for everything but historical evidences, archaelogical evidences, personal experience, hermeneutical study count for nothing? Apparently it would seem that you believe this, as it's the only belief under which your comment would make any sense. And of course, it's a belief which is patently absurd. Correct me if I've misread your epistemological stance and beliefs.

aj phillips, "the evidence for evolution is so over-whelming and abundant; and the evidence for creationism so completely absent, that a basic level of understanding is all that is required to make an informed decision."

Who said anything about "creationism"? I only referred to Intelligent design. Two different things.

"Anyone not capable of doing so would have to have a thinking disorder that was bordering on mental retardation".

I guess all those phds who agree that a case can be made for intelligent design must be retarded then?

The arrogance of internet know it alls is astounding! haha.

Chuckle chuckle. If it wasn't so sad it'd be hilariously funny. Actually, It kind of is anyway....

"I simply couldn’t continue to believe in a god that would create everything in a way that made it look as though he didn’t need to exist (and on this level, I can sympathise with creationists) and then punish people for not believing, just as I couldn’t continue to believe in a god that documented his ‘word’ in a way that didn’t appear to need him to exist either".

So what you're effectively saying here is, that if God existed, you'd expect direct scientific evidence that he exists? Is that your view?

(I'm trying to cut to the chase of your view here. I strongly disagree with your overplaying the significance of evolution, but I suspect my first response cuts to the core of all of your comments.

"Of course, you get those who claim that science and religion answer two different questions - one is the ‘how’ and the other is the ‘why’ - but what these people don’t realise is that religion doesn’t answer, or even help to answer the ‘why’ - it only asserts it."

Has it occurred to you that it isn't possible for something to be an "answer" to anything without asserting something?

Oliver, "You assume a prioi that the theological framework is Judeo-Christian. That is does not take the guise of an objective observer."

I'm referring to a Judeo-Christian framework, definitely. This isn't an "a priori assumption" it is simply creating a discussion from the perspective I come from. I have less knowledge and interest in the interplay between science and "other theological frameworks", so why would I write about them? And, does this make me less objective? No. Why? Because no one looks at theology objectively. It is impossible.

"If one were to spend a few hours putting together a serious paper on some OLO topics (if time did permit), then there is a fair chance that the fundamentalist Christians would respond with lols, lampoons or jump topic"

I think if I wrote a serious paper, I'd have a whole lot of atheists responding with a lot of the same......I think I've demonstrated that a couple of times in this very post (and the one above it) :-). But of course, that is beside the point

ps: Just re reading my replies: An apology is in order. I shouldn't have implied arrogance on AJ Phillips part- I misrepresented him in my reply. Apologies, it's 4am in the morning!