It is a pity, isn't it, Raycom.

This God of yours knew what it would take to convince Hitchins of his existence in order to access that forgiveness and yet he chose not to.

It has always amazed me that those who are so ignorant of basic science are still at least able to access the answers to the big questions.

SM,
We're finding much to agree on. ID is not a valid theory to 'most' of the world's scientists. But so what? Science is not conducted by popularity pole. It''s not about counting noses.

Scientists are human, and many fall foul of using ideology or religion to define what they wish to discover. I've often said something pretty similar, but from the other side of the fence.

Pericles,
Here too, after butting heads for so long, it's remarkable the levels to which we can agree.

“I don't have any.” That is, you admit its pretty difficult to display any facts about evolution. That's hardly surprising. It's part of the nature of the beast when one is trying to reconstruct history, or create a model of natural history.

My facts are the same as yours. Our facts are the raw materials: fossils, sedimentary layers, rock formations etc. These are what we observe. Observations of present data are verifiable. We just need to look at them.

Yet our theories differ, along with our presuppositions, instilled by our education and upbringing, etc. Yet I end up with a conclusion the same as yours. That is, our theories are “based upon deep and thorough research of the available physical evidence. This evidence has been collated by a bunch of -ologists, among them anthropologists, archaeologists, ethnologists, geologists, paleontologists, etc.”

You claim that there is no evidence for God. That is, after spending a fair amount of your effort arguing against the evidence that was put before you. I'm happy for you to critique, analyse, and dispute the evidence. But you then can't turn around and say no evidence was put before you. That just doesn't make sense.

Maybe its the terms and definitions that need to be more precise. What are the precise meanings of words like: fact, presupposition, observation, evidence, argument, conclusion, proof, paradigm, worldview, belief?

Way back when, in my first post I addressed to you, I spoke of the importance of getting the definitions correct. Otherwise we might waste energy disputing things about which we really agree.

You say you start from the position where you don't know everything. I think a lot of us would agree that we're right there with you. Christians believe they know someone who was there at the beginning, and has given us a few indications as to what went down when.

Saltpetre,
Let's try clarifying these definitions. Intelligent Design, broadly speaking, is the study of identifying intelligent causation. An archaeologist would use these principles, for example, when looking at the markings on a pot. Are they natural erosion or deliberate pattern? Applied to biology, some claim that there are discernible patterns in nature that reveal intelligence.

That man is made in the image of God (rather than of apes) is specific Christian teaching as revealed in the Scriptures.

Modern Biblical creationists do not believe that God made different variations of mankind. God made one man and one women. The variation we see evident is the result of the natural combination of genes derived from those present in the original pair, as well as other environmental factors.

Yes, I have noticed certain similarities between people, apes, and other animals. Such similarities would be predicted in a creationist model, as similar design features would be expected to be displayed by the one designer. If man had no genetic features in common with apes, one may be lead to think that there were more than one designer.

“I am a Christian” (Saltpetre, 27/11)

“My belief is rather that God can only ever remain beyond description, beyond packaging as a commodity, and beyond conscious understanding; remaining only sensory, intuitive, and all-encompassing.” (Saltpetre, 30/11)

I put it to you that these two statements of yours above are inconsistent. Saying you are a Christian is “packaging”, and clearly not remaining “beyond description”. (This statement from 30/11 actually might be fitting for some forms of Eastern or Hindu belief.)

The Christian faith is something specific. It's not a vague belief about God. Being a Christian has something to do with following Christ's teaching. It has to do with believing in the Deity of Jesus. Jesus asked Simon-Peter, 'Who do you say that I am?' For Jesus, that was a crucial question, a critical issue.

You say, “God is not going to intervene.” (Saltpetre, 11/12) On what do you base that claim? Do you know the plans of God?

DSM

The singular problem that real scientists have with ID is that the foundation of ID is that some processes are so complex that they could not have evolved or come to be without some external intelligence. The subsequent papers promoting ID follow this basic tenet. This is a prime example of what Dawkins described as "The God of the Gaps" which in simplistic terms goes like this "We can't find an explanation based on what we know today, therefore God must have done it." This logic is at its core unscientific. The assumption that because we don't understand something now somehow implies that we won't understand it later defies common logic.

Until someone finds something that is impossible to have evolved without an outside hand, such as a being with DNA sequencing alien to existing life, ID remains just a wishful thought bubble without substance.

Dan,

You are doing your best (unintentionally) to convince me there is no God.

When any hypothesis is constantly modified to account for obstacles and variances threatening to disprove the 'desired' result, such hypothesis can only be viewed with suspicion and doubt. Your convoluted reasoning in response to my previous query sows just such doubt.

You explain that variations evident in humankind are a result of the natural combination (or natural evolution?) of the finite genetic material available from just two original individuals, "..as well as other environmental factors."

These unexplained 'factors' and their possible operation remain as etherial phantoms. You also rule out a role of ID in humankind variances, thus indicating a one-off application of ID, possibly therefore to an 'original' pair of every species which has ever existed - or is ID supposed only to account for humankind, with all other species arising from the mist?

I can accept the one-off application of ID, but for myself this is in two parts only - the creation of the Universe, and the origin of the 'spark' of life.

Your genetic natural 'recombination' appears to resemble natural 'evolution', but your potential one-off origin of all species (as an inferred extension of ID) fails to account for the genetic relationships of such species as horse, tapir and rhinoceros and the fossil eohippus, or the various elephant species and the fossil mammoths and mastodons, or the tarsier and modern lemurs and monkeys, or the parallel development of possum and opossum, old and new world monkeys, etc...

In the ID model, God has been, and remains, very busy - creating many new 'original' species throughout Earth history, but then allowing natural genetic 'recombination' to account for a proliferation of variations.

One has only to accept the marvel of genetics, of DNA itself in its complexity and its foundational simplicity of design, and to accept the operation of genetic mutation, duplication and bonding, to then accept the reality of the natural evolution of species. Including of humankind? Or, is the latter a leap of 'faith' too far?