Hey Philo
A small correction about ID. It has no research going on, not at any time. You disagree? Fine! Show me an accredited peer reviewed journal that produces the latest ID research & I'll be more than happy to read it. But you won't find any.
Point 2: I would have thought a good christian lad such as yourself would have recognised the danger inherent in ID theory. Science is concerned with the natural world ie that which can be observed. God is NOT part of this natural world & therefore is NOT a proper subject of scientific investigation. By bringing God into a theory, that claims to be scientific, ID makes God a proper subject of scientific investigation. In other words God is merely to be an observable phenomena like any other. Not exactly in line with scripture is it?
But if you claim that God is NOT subject to scientific study then you undercut ID theory since any theory MUST be able to be examined through the scientific investigation otherwise it is NOT science.
Conclusion: ID is NOT science & is a danger to the Christian faith. But push it if you like.

My goodness, new life in a dying thread! SAS your post is certainly challenging, I am not sure where to start. I think there is no such thing as undeveloped Christianity that goes back to the pure and simple source of the actions and sayings of Jesus. Right from the earliest writings of Paul we have very sophisticated and developed theology. That development took different forms in the gospels but they all point to the one reality. Of course Jesus was a Jew, as was Paul and maybe Matthew. Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as if he invented a new religion, his life and work were interpreted in the light of the OT but pushed beyond it. This is why I always emphasis the importance of Israel and Jesus. The historical development of Christianity took off among the Jews and then the gentiles, Jesus would never have envisioned this, the movement became greater than the man would ever have thought. This is evidence of its inherent vitality.

As for Intelligent Design, what this space.

Bosk & Rowdy,
When leading genetic scientists like atheist Anthony Flew is at the forefront of promoting Intelligent Design, I hardly think it is a construct of religion. To date he has not stated he has accepted a religious faith.

By the way I do not believe in a six day creationism, which seems to colour your conclusions about ID.

Dear MJB,
Being new to this forum my original post was around 900 words, so to comform to policy I had to do some severe editing. I'm not complaining, it's just the way things are and I have no problem with that.
SAS

Vynnie

I'm almost sniffing a 'JW' at your end :) ?

Back to Luke 1:34 "how can this be, etc " does not use the word 'parthenos' Virgin. Correct.

Now look at 2 things:

1/ Lukes insistence on his producing a very accurate record of the events.

2/ Verse 26 etc

26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin (Parthenos) pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's(Parthenos) name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

So, just as with real estate they say its 'location x3'.. with Biblical interpretation its 'context context context'.

Luke is reporting this as a factual event.

How about we accept his version, as he was closer to the events than us.

Bosky... I think you've been reading too much of 'chariots of the gods' :) c'mon mate.. do some real research and put something credible up for us. It just ain't worth rebutting the incredulous.

I think you mentioned something about 'Show me a peer reviewed paper on ID" Well thats hard... want to know why ? Simple. 'entrenched' establishment science becomes very emotional and suddenly subjective when one of them 'breaks ranks'... they also become very anti social to the guy who steps outside the orthodox loop....check this out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

<<Richard Sternberg, evolutionary biologist: "They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there.">>

So, that's why u don't see many !

DB & Philo
Two points. 1) RE: the steinberg alegations. Does he possess documentary evidence for this great conspiracy? NO? All we have is his word you say? Hey I'd like to sell you a bridge I own in that case. I KNOW you'll believe me after all you'll have My word. :)
2) ID have their own research centre. They offer huge grants to anyone who will undertake any research to substantiate ID. So far there are NO takers. Two options to expalin this. 1) their in on the conspiracy too. This is known as paranoia. 2) There are no takers because there is NOTHING to research.
C'mon DB. From Philo I expected unsubstantiated assertions but you should know better. No evidence means no assertion. Rules of evidence apply.

Sells
By the way about the Dan Brown crack. VERY low class. I actually got my information from such lousy authors as Henry Chadwick who says "the Church actively created the canon in response to Marcion & other sectarian leader..." p.29 Oxford History of Christianity.
I can also quote from John Romer in his work "The Bible & History" & Anrdrie B. Du Toit. who writes "It is undeniable that the canon was established as a response to the writings of Marcion & the other Gnostics" p. 103-104 Oxford Companion to the Bible ed Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan.
Needless to add I stand by what I wrote.