Oliver,
I tried to answer your specific questions, but I’m a bit fuzzy as to what point you’re trying to make.

What I said was no Christian takes ALL of the bible literally. It’s a matter of correctly interpreting the intention of the biblical writer. Clearly, some parts are easier to discern than others. Most of it is pretty obvious.

Therefore, of your eight dot points:
I disagree with points 1 & 2.

I disagree with point 3. The Bible does not teach a flat earth. (I said there is no hint of it.)
Point 4 is roughly okay (but I still struggle to understand its relevance to what you’re trying to say).
I don’t understand what you’re saying in point 5. You may have misunderstood me.
I disagree with point 6. Genesis has never been rewritten. The Dead Sea Scrolls would confirm this. And the gospel of Thomas is not part of the Bible (It wasn’t accepted as part of the Christian canon).

But overall, I think you were heading towards points 7 & 8 as some kind of conclusion.

I don’t think that ID requires a dissection of religion. Look above at David f’s definition of ID (22/5):

“Intelligent design is the assertion that ‘certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.’ It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.”

With ID, the definition of God is pretty loose. It doesn’t depend on Scripture.

I don’t think miracles interfere with the concept of a creator God (If that’s what you were getting at in point 7). The physical norms of the universe describe the underpinnings of God’s creation, which we are privileged to investigate. Miracles describe God’s intervention within the created order.

With over 200 posts and counting here, are we ready to admit that Zimmerman was wrong and ID is not dead?

Trav,

There are no semantical games going on here. I know exactly what I’m talking about.

<<Most modern day ID proponents more or less believe in the evolutionary story of history.>>

That depends on what you mean by “evolutionary story of history”.

<<Yet, by confusing [ID] with a term associated with young earth belief (creationism) you don’t help discussions at all.>>

I’m not confusing anything here. The only difference between ID and creationism is that ID proponents aren’t fussed about any specific god. Some aren’t too fussed about timelines either, but that’s it.

By refusing to give ID legitimacy, I am in fact helping discussion.

<<There is most certainly strong evidence for evolution, but there is definitely some things which can be taken as evidence for ID.>>

Could you give an example?

I’ve asked creationists for evidence many times and I knock down every bit of ‘evidence’ they give in an instant. Heck, Dan S de Merengue eventually stopped giving me “evidence” because he grew tired of me debunking everything he said.

<<I’d suggest you consult John Lennox, Steven Meyer, etc.>>

Yes, I know their arguments, and they’ve all been debunked repetitively or have been shown to be fallacious. For example, Meyer’s “signature in the cell” isn’t exactly Occam’s razor-friendly, and fails to acknowledge that just complexity does not imply design. Complexity arises from either sloppiness or necessity and a perfect being would not be sloppy, nor would they need to make living creatures so complex when they could simply use magic.

<<...no one on either side ever makes convincing arguments (to me, anyway) about why the truth of evolution would cancel out God or make him extremely unlikely.>>

When I mentioned evolution and the existence of god, I was speaking from my own personal point-of-view. The purpose of evolution is not to disprove any gods.

<<...could such a [deistic] God be detected by scientific research? Clearly not.>>

Why not?

And if they can’t be detected, then we have no way of distinguishing between this deity and something that doesn’t exist, so why bother?

Continued...

...Continued

When trying to understand something, we compare it to, and make use of things that we do understand. So if god is this immeasurable, non-demonstrable and unverifiable thing, then all we can compare him to and make use of to understand him is... nothing. After all, you can’t answer a mystery with a mystery.

Holy books are of no help either considering (as david f pointed out on this thread already) there is no reason to believe one over the others.

<<Now, is such view of a God all that different from the God of theism?>>

Which god of theism? There are billions of people in the world with millions - if not billions - of different ideas about who god is.

It’s kind of amusing in a way. A billion or so people in the world have a personal relationship with Jesus and yet not one of them can agree on what exactly he wants.

<<There’s no reason why, if God created the universe, he couldn’t step in and act within the world he created.>>

Yes, just as there’s no reason why we should believe that these miracles occurred when they go against every bit of practical knowledge we’ve acquired. For example, we have two choices:

1. We can believe that some old scribblings from ancient primitive people are true and that the purported miracles happened, or;

2. We can conclude that are just old stories and fables, and that none of it happened as it was purported to have.

Now from your day-to-day life experiences, what would you say was more likely?

Unless you witness verifiable miracles from time-to-time, or unless you have some special reason for which you are willing to forgo rational thought in this particular instance, you would have to pick 2.

It’s just too co-incidental that the more we learn about the world in which we live, the less frequently miracles occur and the less appearances god makes to people.

<<And again, would such a God be detectable by Science? No, clearly not.>>

Again, why not?

Continued...

...Continued

<<You claim that “anything that manifests in reality is measureable, demonstrable and verifiable” ... But this view is absurd.>>

No, it’s not absurd.

If a multiverse exists, then some day it will be demonstrable and verifiable. That it is not yet demonstrable is irrelevant to what I’m saying. But most theists claim that god is transcendent and will never be demonstrable or verifiable. So again, you can’t, and never will be able to tell the difference between your god and something that doesn’t exist.

<<[Science] cannot explain why there is a world to begin with...>>

What makes you think there is, or has to be a ‘why’?

<<...much less why this world should have observable natural laws and appear so ordered and so finely tuned for life like us.>>

Yes, life like us. If things happened differently then it may have been life like something else, or they may have been no life at all.

To say that something couldn’t happen because it is unlikely is ridiculous when we know it did happen. It’s the ‘Argument from Incredulity’ fallacy.

<<Science doesn’t tell us that there is or isn’t a reason for existence and the universe- it can’t>>

And neither does religion.

<<...science itself is based on presuppositions that it itself cannot justify...>>

But it’s all we’ve got, and it’s proven itself to be very reliable.

<<It is shallow to suggest that God, if he did exist, would reveal himself from within a test tube.>>

A god that is willing to punish disbelief is obliged to unambiguously reveal himself, and I don’t believe that a perfect being would reward gullibility over reason.

<<After all, would Hamlet be able to detect Shakespeare if he went looking in his attic?>>

We are talking about a non-existent being creating existing life, not an existing being creating an non-existent life.

<<I hope you can see why I believe that objections about God not being detected by science simply miss the point, and are extremely impotent.>>

I hope that you can now see that they don’t and that they are not.

Dan S de Merengue wrote: "The proponents of Intelligent Design don't think of themselves beyond criticism. But if someone could write an informed critique of ID, then maybe we all might learn something."

Dear Dan,

How do you know what the proponents of ID think? How do you know what is in the minds of the other proponents?

Belief in the existence of an entity such as an Intelligent Designer is no evidence for the existence of the entity.

An informed critique in the belief in the existence of the Tooth Fairy would logically start out with the examination of the mind of the person who believed in the Tooth Fairy since there is no evidence for the existence of the Tooth Fairy. I have no basis for criticism of those who believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy as long as they are content to enjoy their beliefs and not interfere with science or the teaching of science.

Belief in the existence of a Tooth Fairy or an Intelligent Designer is a pleasure that like masturbation can be enjoyed alone or in company.

There is no more evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer than there is for the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

A number of years ago my wife and I had the pleasure of a visit from a delightful six year old girl who lost a tooth and found a coin under her pillow next morning. We discussed the possibility of the Tooth Fairy visiting her when she got back to Adelaide.

"Sure she will. Adelaide is a big city."

Our delightful friend is now 24 years old and studying in New York. She no longer believes in the Tooth Fairy. She has grown up.

david f... everyone knows that the Tooth Fairy is male.

That is probably why your young friend lost faith in Him.

Getting the gender right is a vital part of the Belief.

So it is with the Intelligent Designer, male, not female.

The post-modern world thinking has allowed the gender to be altered, and this is the cause of our downfall.

Ask Runner.

He'll agree with me.