The Instigator
GeoLaureate8
Pro (for)
Losing
74 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Con (against)
Winning
112 Points

Intelligent Design Does Not Support Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 29 votes the winner is...
InquireTruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,247 times Debate No: 8537
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (29)

 

GeoLaureate8

Pro

I assert that intelligent design does not support Christianity. The intelligent designer is definitely not the God of the Bible by any means.

Intelligent Design instead supports deism and pantheism only (and other variations of these).

Why Intelligent Design does not support Christianity:

- Intelligent Design by definition is the idea that certain features of the Universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. [1] This does not justify the Christians tendency to think that this somehow proves that Genesis happened and that the designer is their god. Or that the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days. None of these attributes can be assumed when the Intelligent Design argument is used.

- The god of the Bible is described as a being who created the Universe, but the way he did so, contradicts science. The creation story of Genesis defies science and logic in so many ways [2], that it's difficult to imagine the Christian god as being intelligent. If the Christian god also created science, why would it be necessary for him to defy it? Could he not create science so that it is consistent with his actions?

Why Intelligent Design supports deism and pantheism:

- Deism is the belief that through reason, it can be postulated that a "Supreme Architect" exists and designed the universe. Deists do not assign any attributes to the designer and reject religious doctrines. Intelligent Design clearly, and precisely supports deism.

- Pantheism (New Age version) is the belief that the Universe and God are one, and that the Universe is conscious. The Universe is the intelligent designer under this philosophy. Even though, generally, pantheism also entails that the Universe has existed forever, the Universe intelligently creates complex life and celestial bodies. Therefore, Intelligent Design supports pantheism.

Also, let it be noted that deism and pantheism contradict Christianity. These philosophies are not accepted in the Christian faith, therefore, intelligent design does not support Christianity.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
InquireTruth

Con

===============
Introduction:
===============

I would like to thank my opponent for instigating such an interesting topic. I will try to be as succinct as possible in my argument. To be honest, I find GeoLaureate8's argument to be more of a misunderstanding than a substantive argument.

===============
Contention 1: Christianity does not teach a 6000 year old earth
===============

My opponent argues that ID does not support Christianity because Christianity makes claims that are inconsistent with science. The most important thing to point out is that, even if GeoLaureate9 was correct about Christianity, it would not mean that Intelligent Design does not support Christianity. Central to Christianity is the notion that God exists – ID is supportive of this basic notion. Moreover, "Christianity" does NOT teach that the earth is 6,000 years old. Even if a strict literal translation of the book of Genesis (something not congenial with contemporary Christian scholarship) was taken, there are no good reasons to believe that the universe was created in 6,000 years. There is no mention of this number in the Bible, nor does a comprehensive study of the Bible's genealogies lead us to this number (Usher's bunk genealogical addition in the middle-ages notwithstanding).

Furthermore, the beginning chapter of Genesis was never meant to be taken literally, as is obvious with the creative 7 day literary motif. There is a tripartite division in the first chapter, in which days 1-3 directly parallel days 4-6. Unless God was creating in a way that precisely resembled Mesopotamian stylistic and literary usage, then it is most likely that Genesis 1 is analogical, in that its primary purpose is to refute the growing idea that the universe always existed by proclaiming that God created.

Taken in this sense, the account is merely that God has created the universe – the universe could be billions of years old and still consistent with this basic proclamation.

===============
Contention 2: ID's support is not mutually exclusive
===============

My opponent, somewhat tangentially, concludes that ID supports Deism and Pantheism, as if this somehow shows that it could not possibly support Christianity as well. Since all three purport, in some sense, an intelligent designer - be it a personal or non-personal entity – then ID supports all three concepts. My opponent's case is NOT that ID is non-supportive of Christianity, but that science itself is non-supportive of Christianity. But the basic concept, that the universe requires intelligent cause, can only support the Christian hypothesis that an intelligent deity exists, insofar as ID is an existential claim, not a theological one.

My opponent is essentially saying that the existential claim inherent in ID, is non-supportive of the theological concepts within Christianity. Well of course its not, why would it be? There are no theological claims inherent in ID, only an existential claim. Therefore, it is only reasonable to compare the existential claim inherent in ID and the existential claim inherent in Christianity. ID makes one claim, an intelligent designer exists – it makes no claim to the character or quality of this designer. This basic claim is absolutely consistent with the existential claim inherent in Christianity – God exists. Of course ID does not prove that this God is loving, great, or mono, but this does not change the fact that it IS supportive.

===============
Conclusion:
===============

I look forward to my opponent's response.

Sources:

Genesis 1
Debate Round No. 1
GeoLaureate8

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge. I'd like to clarify though, that there was no misunderstanding when formulating my argument.

==========
Age of the Earth
==========

My opponent contends that Christianity does not teach a 6,000 year old earth. The Bible does not give a specific number, but Christian apologetics "derive their range of figures using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible" [1] According to creation "scientist" and Bible expert, Kent Hovind, you must absolutely believe in young earth creationism if you have read and understood the Bible. Most Biblically based estimates of the earth's beginning have been around the year 4,000 B.C. [2] Another point to bring up is that if the Universe were 14 billion years old under a Christian perspective, it would be a ludicrous notion. The Bible starts with Adam and Eve in the beginning, and then, what? A 14 billion year gap until the Bible picks up on the story again? Why wouldn't the Bible mention what happened during the time between Genesis and Babylon? It is understood that the earth is young under a Christian perspective based on Biblical chronology.

===================
Intelligent Designer vs. Yahweh
===================

My opponent also asserts that central to Christianity is the notion that God exists. This is completely false. Central to Christianity is the notion that Yahweh exists, including all of the attributes given to him by the Bible. Yahweh is a specific being with specific characteristic traits. Intelligent Design does not support any of this, hence the resolution.

"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion." - Richard Dawkins

The above statement makes it clear that if there were an intelligent cause of the Universe, it could not possibly be Yahweh.

Intelligent Design is a scientific conjecture, therefore, because Genesis is inconsistent with science, ID does not support Christianity. (I know that ID being scientific is controversial, but it is not a theologically derived argument. It is theorized through scientific reasoning and observation.)

Also, even if ID was not considered scientific, it still contradicts Christianity because it allows for all the scientific truths such as the age of the Universe being 14 billion years old. The Genesis of 6,000 years ago clearly contradicts this. Christianity forces many scientific truths to be dismissed.

The story in Genesis =/= Intelligent Design theory.

My opponent tried to avoid this argument by claiming that Genesis was never meant to be taken literally. 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. You can just as well claim the entire book is metaphorical, thus discrediting it completely. My opponent concludes that Genesis is merely suggesting that God created the Universe. Of course, though, Genesis is not just merely suggesting that. Genesis is suggesting the characterized being, Yahweh, created the Universe in exactly the way it describes.

==========================
Deism / Pantheism vs. Theism
==========================

{*My opponent, somewhat tangentially, concludes that ID supports Deism and Pantheism, as if this somehow shows that it could not possibly support Christianity as well. Since all three purport, in some sense, an intelligent designer - be it a personal or non-personal entity – then ID supports all three concepts. ...the basic concept, that the universe requires intelligent cause, can only support the Christian hypothesis that an intelligent deity exists, insofar as ID is an existential claim, not a theological one.*}

I concluded that ID only supports Deism and Pantheism. This statement excludes Theism which entails a personal, characteristic deity, i.e. Christianity. I also asserted that the only two philosophies that ID -does- support, clearly contradict Christian theology. My opponent asserts that the basic concept that the universe requires an intelligent cause can only support the Christian hypothesis that an intelligent deity exists. I rebute that because intelligent design does not necessarily require a deity. The intelligent cause could merely be evidence that the Universe itself is intelligent, which is the Pantheistic notion. And laughingly, based on the account in Genesis, Yahweh was far from intelligent seeing as he didn't understand basic scientific concepts an 8 year old understands, i.e. creating light before creating light emitting stars or separating light from dark.

My opponent does however, rightfully assert that ID is an existential claim, not a theological one. Though, this argument supports my position, not his, and he admits that as stated here:

"My opponent is essentially saying that the existential claim inherent in ID, is non-supportive of the theological concepts within Christianity. Well of course its not, why would it be? There are no theological claims inherent in ID, only an existential claim."

{*This basic claim is absolutely consistent with the existential claim inherent in Christianity – God exists.*}

No, that's Deism. That is my point completely. Intelligent Design only goes as far as Deism (or Pantheism) and stops there. Christians, when in debate, tend to use Intelligent Design to support their theology, but make the erroneous mistake of jumping from Deism to Theism. This is one of the main reasons why I brought up this argument. It is wrong for Christians to make the false equation that since they can provide and argument for Deism, that it also supports Christian theology.

=========
Conclusion
=========

In conclusion, my opponent consistently claimed that central to Christianity is the notion that God exists. I demonstrated to the contrary, that it is exclusively a Deistic or Pantheistic claim, not a Theistic one. My opponent even agreed that ID is an "existential claim," not a theological claim. Therefore, Intelligent Design does not support Christian theology.

[1] [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
InquireTruth

Con

=============
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.
Debate Round No. 2
GeoLaureate8

Pro

=========
Age of Earth & Genesis
=========

My opponent asserts that the earth is not 6,000 years old under a Biblical perspective because genealogical age calculations may have been inaccurate. He says that names or entire lineages were left out. That may be true, but it still doesn't make a difference. Even if they were a hundred years off, or even a thousand years off, it's nowhere near 14 billion years. Why haven't Biblical scholars come up with an older age? It may be true that a 6,000 year old earth based on the Bible may be inaccurate, but it is clear that it implies a young earth. 14 billion years just doesn't make sense from a Biblical standpoint because of the enormous gap between Genesis and Babylon.

My opponent insists that Genesis is not to be taken literally and provides his own theory as to why. His own theory or speculation about the intentions of Genesis is not proof against my position. I contend that Genesis is meant to be taken literally. He asserts that the purpose of the story was not to represent how God created, but that he created. If that were the case, it would have simply said that God created the Universe. Instead, it describes in detail exactly how God created the Universe. It didn't get into specifics just to entertain the reader. If you're going to take the Bible literally, Genesis is no exception.

=============
Intelligent Designer VS Yahweh
=============

{*My opponent is playing word games. YHWH = God. I absolutely agree that the Bible asserts theological characteristics of said God.*}

I am in no way playing word games. You are asserting that your opinion Yahweh = God is a fact, and because I object, you think I am playing word games. I am clearly stating that Yahweh is NOT God. Yahweh is just another personified deity like Zeus, Mithra, Dionysus, and Osiris. Everyone wants to claim that their god is the one, true God, including your claim that it is Yahweh. If it were proven that there was an intelligent cause for the Universe, what proof do you have that it is Yahweh? You act as if Yahweh = God is an absolute fact. It's not, it's you're opinion.

Again, this quote makes it clear that if there were an intelligent cause of the Universe, it could not possibly be any personified god of a religion, including Christianity:

"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion." - Richard Dawkins

What makes Yahweh so special over all the other gods to be labeled as THE intelligent designer?

My opponent provides an analogy explaining that Christianity asserts that god exists with certain characteristics and that intelligent design affirms the existence, but not the characteristics. I disagree. Christianity asserts that a specific god exists (Yahweh) with specific attributes (jealous, vengeful, and other human-like traits and emotions). Intelligent design does not imply a specific god nor does it give attributes. I equate Intelligent Design with the Big Bang theory because both are scientific theories about the origin of the Universe. This allows for theologians to claim that their god is responsible. Of course, both assertions would be baseless claims. Like I said, the intelligent cause doesn't necessarily denote a deity. It could be mere evidence that the Universe is intelligent. This would completely contradict the existential and theological claims of Christianity. In the end, unless you can prove that the alleged intelligent cause = Yahweh, then intelligent design does not support Christianity.

=============
Deism/Pantheism vs Theism
=============

My opponent affirms my resolution:

"No one is saying that ID supports Christian Theology. They are saying that it supports the Christian claim that a God exists."

Christianity = Christian theology. Therefore, you admit that ID does not support Christianity.

My opponent asserts that ID does not need to support the Biblical theology, but rather supports the Christian claim that God exists. If God is discovered, and it turns out to be an intelligent Universe or Zeus, is it still a Christian claim? No. The Christian claim would be that the one true God is Yahweh who did everything as described in the Bible. So it's not that Christianity claims that God exists, but rather that their god Yahweh exists.

=============
Conclusion
=============

In conclusion, my opponent affirmed my resolution thus demonstrating that Intelligent Design does not support Christianity (Christian theology.) In the end, Intelligent Design only supports Deism and Pantheism, not Theism. My opponent consistently agreed that Intelligent Design does not support any theological claims in Christianity, which is enough to affirm my resolution. He tried to make it look as though the claim that God exists is "central to Christianity" though this is not true. That is the Deistic claim. Central to Christianity is it's theology, which ID does not support. Thank you for reading.

Resolution affirmed.

.
InquireTruth

Con

==============
Age of the Earth
==============

No, my assertion was not that the calculations were incorrect, but that calculations in general are impossible – insofar as their function does not permit their calculation. Moreover, a literal 6 day creation is absolutely fundamental to my opponent's claim – this claim, unfortunately, was never substantiated beyond a tenuous Dr. Dino quote.

Furthermore, my opponent, instead of giving "my" theory the luxury of refutation, he merely seeks to disparage it by assuming it was a theory of my own. Moreover, he assumes that his assumption about Genesis is somehow the default and he need not do any exegesis of his own to support his claim. Not only is this hermenutically biased, it is egregiously incorrect. This theory, though I would love to call it my own, is congenial with most Old Testament scholars. Among them are Abraham Heschel, the renowned Polish Theologian, Howard Macy, George Fox University's own Old Testament Scholar, William Lane Craig, a man whose reputation speaks for itself, and also Ben Witherington III.

My opponent's argument can be summed up with the following quote: "If that were the case, it would have simply said that God created the Universe."

This screams intellectual ignorance in terms of understanding ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian literary forms. Not only does my opponent's argument reside on a very feeble assumption, but it is blatantly wrong. As was common form during the time Genesis was written, stories were told to illustrate one fundamental truth – in this case, it was that God created. It is VERY safe to conclude that Genesis 1 was NEVER MEANT to me taken literally in that a COMMON 7 day motif was utilized. Moreover, the obvious parallels between the days (mentioned in both my round one and two) illustrates that Genesis one was never intended to be taken as a hyper-literal account of the creation (Here is a link to Genesis one, read the days and see how obvious the parallels are: http://www.biblegateway.com...).

==============
Intelligent Design VS YHWH
==============

My opponent has made a claim that, when pressed, is clearly not cogent. He tries to create a dichotomy between YHWH and God, as if to show, by juxtaposition, that ID supports the latter but not the former. This is balderdash. Instead, God should be seen as the intelligent cause of the universe. This is possibly YHWH and it can only be possible if ID is true. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to the god of deism as Ubdar. Now, the assumed characteristics of Ubdar are that he is uninvolved, unconcerned, and non-participatory in the universe or earthly matters. The problem is that these traits, like the theological ascriptions of YHWH, are not inherent in the existential claim of ID.

If my opponent asserts that ID supports the existence of Ubdar but not the existence of YHWH, then he is either clearly mistaken, or epistemologically biased – neither fair well for him in this debate. ID does not lend credence to the characteristics of either Ubdar or YHWH – but it supports them both because it allows for them to be true by supporting their underlining assertion that God exists. If ID is incorrect (in that there is no intelligent cause) both deism and Christianity are wrong. It seems only fair to say that ID supports Christianity given that Christianity's very validity rests on ID's verity.

My opponent has not addressed the most fundamental point that it is only reasonable to compare the existential claim of ID with the existential claim of Christianity (yet he does for pantheism and deism). ID ONLY asserts that an intelligent cause must exist. We must take this claim and compare it to the Christian existential claim that a creator of the universe exists. Since ID does not make any characteristic claims, we cannot compare or expect ID to support certain characteristics aside from existing. Therefore ID supports the Christian claim that a creator of the universe exists and it also supports the possibility of this God having Christian characteristics or deistic characteristics.

==============
Deism/Pantheism vs Theism
==============

"Christianity = Christian theology. Therefore, you admit that ID does not support Christianity."

A non-Christian telling a Christian what Christianity is ,will not do. My opponent's assertion lacks evidence, I shall, therefore, disregard it without evidence.

"If God is discovered, and it turns out to be an intelligent Universe or Zeus, is it still a Christian claim? No."

If it turns out that the intelligent cause was the universe itself or Zeus, then it will not longer support deism OR theism. As it stands, ID only makes an existential claim and therefore it is only fair to compare it to the existential claims of Deism and Christianity. Both require an intelligent cause, therein finding support in ID. ID, by virtue of NOT making any characteristic claims, allows for the possibility of Theism to be true – a possibility that would not be there if ID was indeed incorrect. But it is no use in creating a false analogy and saying, "SEE! If it did not support Christianity then would it support Christianity!? NO. Therefore it does not support Christianity." If my opponent finds such a claim reasonable, than I will let him rest easy on his comfortable bed of straw.

==============
Conclusion
==============

My opponent has not supported his exegetical and hermeneutical stance on the first chapter of Genesis. When pressed, his assertions remained assertions – growing evermore hollow as the rounds progressed. His reasoning was shown fallacious as he unfairly compares deism, theism and pantheism – revealing an epistemological bias that should not be tolerated. He maintained that an existential claim needs to support something beyond the existential claim in Christianity in order to support Christianity – which is outreagiously flawed becuase ID allows for the possibility of Christianity to be true (something that would be impossible if the theory happens to be incorrect).

I cannot see how any person could support the affirmation of the resolution in light of the debate here.

Accolades to my opponent!

InquireTruth
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
That should be *you're
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Thanks for reading the debate patsox834. I cannot say that I understand the nature of your sentiment since it lacks substance. It is hard to improve when knowing only WHAT your thinking and not WHY your thinking it.
Posted by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
I really don't think InquireTruth should be winning by this much.

I don't even really think he should be winning at all, really....
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Truly a clash of titans. I stand in awe. First, I am very impressed with the passion from both sides. The rounds were delivered wonderfully and with just enough fire to excite the audience but not enough to lose conduct points.

GeoLaureate's force in presentation was very entertaining. His citation of Kent Hovind, in my opinion, was a hilarious jab to Intelligent Design, but a poor source indeed. It is rare to see so many issues brought up and succinctly tied to a conclusion.

InquireTruth's performance was no less astounding. I have always been extraordinarily impressed with Christians who interpret the Bible in historical and literary context, as it is a quirky fascination of mine. As always, InquireTruth's writing is eloquent, artful, and yet, packs just enough of a punch to get the job done.

Regretfully, I must tie all categories. I found that the arguments were too evenly matched, no one truly deserves the whole category allotted to them at that level of performance. Conduct, S&G were obvious ties, any errors are negligible. Sources as well, since PRO cited more sources but also Kent Hovind >.>

I'd like to see this continued.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Tie

Spelling/Grammar - Tie

Argument - Con - Con convincingly argued that ID need not account for the personal attributes of YHWH to support it. Pro then tried to argue that since ID cannot prove YHWH over Zeus or Osiris, it cannot support Christianity. This was unconvincing since, even if ID cannot distinguish between religions, if true, it must at least support all religions with an intelligent diety. Perhaps Pro's best case was when he argued that YHWH shows a deficiency of intelligence in his method of creation, but Pro offered very little evidence to accept a literal Genesis 1 translation when compared to Con's exegesis.

Sources - Con - Con earned this vote when Pro appealed to Kent Hovind, who was been thoroughly discredited... even by other young-earth creationist scholars.
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
Breakdown:
(1) I agreed with Con at the beginning actually. I assumed, as he did, that supporting the notion of a deity would be enough to support the notion of a Christian God.
(2) By the end I was unsure who I agreed with. Whether or not ID supports the Christian God must depend on whether or not a particular sect of Christianity believes in all of the descriptive elements of the Bible. This wasn't clarified at the beginning, so the point becomes moot.
(3) Geo wins the conduct vote. Nothing screams impoliteness more than asserting another's ignorance. Especially since, regardless of Mesopotamian or Egyptian descriptive forms, all religions begin with a creation story posited as literal and make it more figurative over time. If you remove the creation story from Genesis, then you have no literal account of how God created the world in the Bible. If you have no account of how God created the world, you need to ask yourself if he did or why he didn't explain it to any of his numerous prophets.
(4) Spelling and grammar is a tie, nothing too egregious.
(5) Equally convincing arguments, for better and for worse.
(6) Equally convincing references.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
The Big Bang supports the claim that the universe had a beginning - it is not conclusive, but it allows for Christianity to be true while supporting its claim that the universe was created. Since neither the Big Bang nor ID are theological claims, it is ridiculous to compare them to the theological claims of Christianity. Since they are, essentially, existential claims, it is only fair to compare them to the existential claims of Christianity.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Meh sorry, I don't want to respond as of now since you two are already in a debate. I feel it kind of ruins it haha.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 8 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Skeptic, you realize that the Big Bang also allows for it. Theists could do the same thing and say God created the Big Bang. Do you see why ID does not support Christianity? It's just another theory about the origin of the Universe, just like the Big Bang. Both, could allow it, yet neither support it.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
"My opponent, somewhat tangentially..."

Tangentially is a word :O? Awesome, I love learning new words from Literature/English/etc. Majors :).

And yeah, IT is right on this one. Because while ID is NOT a unique proof of Christianity, it certainly allows for it.
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by numbany 8 years ago
numbany
GeoLaureate8InquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by twmazer 8 years ago
twmazer
GeoLaureate8InquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mimo1991 8 years ago
Mimo1991
GeoLaureate8InquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
GeoLaureate8InquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
GeoLaureate8InquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by PwnzorDebaterLyncher 8 years ago
PwnzorDebaterLyncher
GeoLaureate8InquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DevinRichardson1 8 years ago
DevinRichardson1
GeoLaureate8InquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Osiris 8 years ago
Osiris
GeoLaureate8InquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
GeoLaureate8InquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
GeoLaureate8InquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70