First, you have yet to define what a Fundy Christian is. I gave you at least 3 critieria to draw a key distinction between what I consider to be Fundy Christians and evangelicals or conservative protestants. The reason this distinction is important is that the media by pulling the “all ID theorists are Fundy's” have done a hasty generaliztion, appealed to the emotions of the audience, and hence sloppily ruled out ID as creationism.

Second, regardless of what type of person holds to ID or even if they think God is the intelligent mind behind the natural world has nothing to do with the data and theorizing about it. It's precisely because ID theorists started with empircal data that they wound up concluding that methodological naturalism is insufficient to ground the complexity of certain biological organisms. It's important to note here that a key dif. between ID and Fundy Creationism is that ID starts in the lab and moves to conclusion. Creationism starts with Gen. 1 and just bites the bullet. Finally, whether or not I take the Gen. 1 account to be compelling in terms of a creator God is irrelevant to the discussion. The question is “Can Darwinism or Naturalism account for those physical systems which have the appearance of design?” ID theorists say 'NO' unless a scientist reads their materialist worldview into the picture. That's where the debate ensues. . NOT Genesis 1.

But I do want to respond to this:

As a non-Christian, I would agree. But it all goes back to a fundamental tension between faith and reason. As creatures with an intellect who guide the vast majority of their lives from reason, it is only natural to practice it in every sphere, or at least try to.

Amen, amen, and amen!! We ought to practice reason in every sphere of our lives–including religion. Yes! I hope you'll resolve this “tension” by correctly understanding faith as trusting in something for which you do have reason, and which you do believe is actually true–true in the same sense that there are actually true things in any other sphere. (See my longer answer to you below where I explain the relationship between faith and reason.)

This integrating of faith and reason to one true understanding of reality as a whole is the subject of Nancy Pearcey's book, Total Truth.

I think if you take a look at my answer to Sam, I explained my view on this. I don’t think people are going to choose God on their own, ultimately. People want to be their own God, and they don’t want to submit to another one, so they’ll do whatever they have to to avoid it. That’s just the nature of a humanity in rebellion against God. However, God usually doesn’t just appear to people and pluck them out of thin air. He uses people as His means. We’re called to explain the truth in the best way we can–God is allowing us to take part in the process–and then He enables them to respond or not. (Also, I should point out that not all Christians think this is the case.) The job of apologists is to explain Christianity in a way that will make sense to others–to commend the truthfulness of Christianity in a way others can understand.

This discussion is interesting to me because it seems to indicate that there is an evidentiary path to Christianity. It’s a unique angle I’ve rarely encountered, but admittedly remain deeply skeptical of. It’s my belief that religion is ultimately about faith, not reason. When I encounter argument for Christianity from reason, I’ve found the results to be, to put it mildly, unconvincing.

Well, obviously you’ve found them unconvincing! Christianity is about trust (faith) in something for which we’ve been given reasons to trust. For example, when you get on a plane, you have evidence that it’s going to stay up in the air (at least, you could have it if you researched how a plane can fly). You also have the evidence of planes in the past–when they go up in the air, they usually make it to their destinations. But when you step onto the plane, at that point you’re exercising faith. You’re able to trust (have faith) because planes have shown themselves to be trustworthy.

In the same way, Christianity involves both faith and reason. We have good reasons to believe God exists and Christianity is true (historical, philosophical, even scientific!, and the record of God’s past working in our own lives), so we’re able to place our trust in God. Some people (depending on their personalities) need more evidence than others in order to place their trust in God. I’m a very skeptical person by nature, so I had to do a lot of digging before I was intellectually convinced and could place my full trust in God.

There is only one truth that encompasses all of reality, and we’re saying that part of that one truth of reality is in the realm of religion. In other words, there are propositions (if one can find them) that express the truth about what actually exists in terms of spiritual matters (if there’s a God, what He’s like, what is good, etc.). There is only one way that the spiritual realm actually is because it’s part of the one reality. Therefore, you can reason about religion just as you can about any other subject when you’re trying to find what is true.

If you’re really curious, I would suggest reading the book Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig. It covers evidence in a variety of subjects, including mathematics. As I mentioned before, if Christianity is true as a philosophy–if it is the basis for reality–then all reality ought to reflect this.

If by “naturalism” we actually mean “evolution theory”, yes I very much believe that scientists would be open to proof that it is wrong.

No, I actually meant naturalism as a philosophy driving much of evolutionary theory (macro, not micro). Scientists aren’t open to having their philosophy proven wrong, and this leads to problems I’ll mention in a moment (in the links). It cuts out a whole host of possible answers only because of their own prejudice for their philosophy. But what if the evidence points away from naturalism? They need to ask themselves if they’re more interested in truth or in defending their philosophy at all cost. They need to at least be open to hearing the evidence and having it debated.

Imagine the accolades and awards to any scientist that can offer a better theory that accounts for the evidence

I can only imagine the accolades for someone who offers a better naturalistic theory. Theistic theories will never be considered better because they have already been ruled out as possible answers because of their existing philosophy.

You seem to be arguing that scientists are somehow beholden to naturalism, but how do you explain theistic scientists who nonetheless support evolution?

If they’re theistic–and if they believe God actually exists and isn’t just an idea that makes them feel better, then they don’t believe the world popped into being by chance, but that a being brought it into being.

You might elaborate on what evidence there is for a designer (not designers?).

As I mentioned, ID people aren’t concerned with defining the designer, since that goes beyond the scope of science. I think one would have to look to philosophy and/or other areas for that kind of evidence.

As far as I’m aware, ID theory does not provide any evidence for a designer, but instead argues that since we don’t have plausible explanations for certain natural systems, some sort of designer must have been involved. In other words, a designer is deduced, not evidenced.

A designer is deduced from the evidence, just as natural selection is deduced from the evidence. Here’s part of the evidence in a tiny nutshell: the information in DNA was not determined by physical laws, it is not random, it contains specific information. We know by observing the world that meaningful information only comes from an intelligent agent. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude this is also the case with DNA. It would be unscientific to say that, despite all the previous observations of reality, only the case of DNA is different (even though there’s no reason to suspect it is different…except the reason of their previously held philosophy).

I’d love to debate ID theory, particularly as it relates to Christianity, but fear this is going beyond the original topic. Perhaps you can start up a separate topic?

I might start one up soon, so stick around! In the meantime, take a look at these things I posted before that will explain more:

The reason why specified complexity points to a designer

The confusion of science with the philosophy of naturalism: Part One and Part Two

The dogmatism of scientists defending their philosophy of naturalism

Ruling out God as a possible answer could be ruling out the true answer so that no satisfying answer is ever found (there’s an illustration here that could be helpful to you)

Incidentally, how did you find this blog?

This supposes an agreement on basic canon that I believe was largely absent in early Christian history. In fact, there was a tremendous variety of belief with respect to fundamental doctrine which would probably exist up to today had not the Roman Emperor Constantine commanded the contending bishops to come up with a consistent doctrine at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. This was to some degree done, but nonetheless, many teachings largely continued in a divergent fashion.

In my opinion, the original apologists of the Christian church were the wealthy bishops of Rome who enjoyed official state favor and could therefore enforce their version of Christian canon. The slaughter of “heretics” such as the Gnostics was one means of enforcement…

Even today there is no uniform doctrine upon which all Christians agree, much less actually practice. And it seems to me that doctrine within Christianity is becoming more divergent, not convergent. This raises a question in my mind, are we witnessing the reversion of Christianity back to its original form?

You made the great point that sometimes saying you don’t know the answers is the best thing to do. It would be refreshing to see more “apologists” with that sort of attitude.

As a non-Christian, I would agree. But it all goes back to a fundamental tension between faith and reason. As creatures with an intellect who guide the vast majority of their lives from reason, it is only natural to practice it in every sphere, or at least try to. But then what room for faith, which has typically enjoyed such a heavy emphasis in religion?

Ultimately, God persuades people (no one comes to Him unless He draws him).

Then stated,

A Christian apologist who is convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true collects the facts that have convinced him.

Are you saying some people become Christians due to the evidence, and some others due to God’s persuasion?

If people become Christians due to God’s persuasion, then what need for evidence?

This discussion is interesting to me because it seems to indicate that there is an evidentiary path to Christianity. It’s a unique angle I’ve rarely encountered, but admittedly remain deeply skeptical of. It’s my belief that religion is ultimately about faith, not reason. When I encounter argument for Christianity from reason, I’ve found the results to be, to put it mildly, unconvincing. For example, at one of the blog’s on your blogroll, there is a post entitled Having A Reasonable Faith, in which the author asserts some very dubious premises, such as everyone’s innate belief that “that there is a God, that he has set the world up the way it is (morally, etc.), and that he has a claim to rule over them.”

You say that all the evidence points to naturalism, but that’s only the case if you throw out all the ID evidence simply because it doesn’t point to naturalism. Do you see how that’s “knowing the conclusion before they proved it”? Do you think most naturalistic scientists are really open to proof that naturalism is wrong?

Actually, my exact words were “huge preponderance of evidence,” not “all the evidence.” In any case, I think we need to clarify what we mean by “naturalism”. Your colleague Goose above pointed out that naturalism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory. This is true. (For a good discussion, see here.)

If by “naturalism” we actually mean “evolution theory”, yes I very much believe that scientists would be open to proof that it is wrong. Imagine the accolades and awards to any scientist that can offer a better theory that accounts for the evidence (ID doesn’t offer any evidence per se, just a different interpretation of existing evidence). You seem to be arguing that scientists are somehow beholden to naturalism, but how do you explain theistic scientists who nonetheless support evolution?

I’d love to debate ID theory, particularly as it relates to Christianity, but fear this is going beyond the original topic. Perhaps you can start up a separate topic? You might elaborate on what evidence there is for a designer (not designers?). As far as I’m aware, ID theory does not provide any evidence for a designer, but instead argues that since we don’t have plausible explanations for certain natural systems, some sort of designer must have been involved. In other words, a designer is deduced, not evidenced.

Although there are still false Christians who insist on calling themselves Christian, today's “apologists” have simply comandeered the name. Granted, they defend the truth well, which is to be commended, and there is certainly a biblical mandate to do this, as you have pointed out. But there is no church “office” known as apologist.

Why not? Possibly because Christians are called to be “witnesses.” (A term you are more than familiar with as a lawyer.) And a witness simply gives testimony: This is what happened to me, this is what I know, etc.

No place in the Bible are we told to take up the full-time occupation of defense attorney for God. You made the great point that sometimes saying you don't know the answers is the best thing to do. It would be refreshing to see more “apologists” with that sort of attitude.

Robert, I agree that apologetics is the defense of something and Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith. But, as others have noted, the defense of something does not imply that the arguments cannot be reasonable and logical.
I found it amusing that you cited Judge Jones’s statement that the advocates of ID “have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors.” I’m an attorney and I write for the courts—not the one you quoted. It’s great to see language in judicial opinions get used by others outside the legal community (granted, I’m sure this particular quote made it into the newspapers—as it did the LA Daily Journal). But it should be noted that it’s nothing more that a statement of the court’s opinion—without citation to evidence or authority. It stands or falls on its own merits. Sometimes the person speaking makes the statement more worthy of weight. But, here, that’s not the case. Although called upon to make these sorts of decisions, the court certainly is no expert as to whether (1) a person or group holds bona fide and deeply held beliefs and, more importantly, (2) whether their scholarly endeavors are motivated by such beliefs.

After skimming through the comments, here’s a few of my thoughts:

(1) Everyone begins with a certain predisposition. No one is neutral, no one is capable of purely objective thought. A Christian apologist defends his own faith. A scientist defends his own theories. Science has an aura of greater objectivity. But, as others have noted, underlying one’s scientific theories are assumptions based on a certain worldview—one that is inconsistent with Christianity. A scientist with a Christian worldview may consider the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions.

In my work, I’m constantly reading briefs from parties that are so convinced by their own arguments that they have lost the ability to see objectively. It’s actually quite amusing. In certain cases, after reading the briefs, it seems that the parties are talking about two completely different things. They refuse to see things from the other’s perspective.

That’s how Christians and non-Christians often sound. They don’t realize that both sides may have some merit. And that both sides may be presenting reasonable arguments.

(2) I don’t think that the work of an apologist is to prove the truth of Christianity to an absolute or logical certainty. Proving something to a logical certainty is impossible, unless we’re talking about tautological statements or the like.

We can, however, provide persuasive arguments that our beliefs are reasonable. To the atheist, we can present strong arguments for the existence of God. To those of other faiths, we can compare Christianity to their religion and demonstrate that our beliefs provide more coherent and comprehensive explanations for the big questions in life. To everyone, we can speak of impending judgment and the need to be reconciled to God.

We may not be able to prove truth to a logical certainty, but we can persuade people that Christianity is the best alternative.

(3) Although I have not studied ID extensively, my initial impression is that ID is not science in the traditional sense. ID is grounded on a particular religion. While science also relies on a worldview, science traditionally has been taught without embracing a particular religion. That said, I still think there’s a strong argument for teaching creation with evolution. Both are theories—neither can be proven true or false to an absolute certainty. Evolution is based on a worldview that, for the most part, is inconsistent with the Christian worldview. In certain schools, the Christian students equal or outnumber the non-Christian students. If I were a parent of one of these students, I would want my child to be exposed to teaching that is consistent with my faith. So, on grounds of equal protection and a parent’s fundamental right to determine a child’s upbringing and education, I think school districts should be able to teach ID in accordance with the wishes of the parents who live in those districts. It seems inherently wrong to force upon children scientific conclusions that are inconsistent with their faith. (Disclaimer: I mentioned that I write for the court, but the opinions expressed here are my own and should not be taken for that of the court.)

(4) While the Bible does not use the term “gift of apologetics,” certainly the Bible is not against people giving a defense for the Christian faith. We are told to “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3), to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15), and to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5).

I think the work of an apologist is to tear down barriers that prevent people from being open to the gospel. The gospel itself is what saves. Faith is by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rm. 10:17).

I think of myself as an apologist, but I usually study an issue to answer a question that has been presented to me. I don’t “sit around answering questions that no one is asking.” At the same time, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with anticipating questions and preparing in advance. Those of us who are apologists maybe are confronted with questions more than most (God has a funny way of doing this). One of my atheist coworkers recently started attending our work bible studies. During each study, he has a new set of questions—and we’ve at this point covered almost everything—creation and evolution, free will and predestination, judgment and hell, inspiration, canonicity….this week, the authorship of the gospel of John.

What I’m constantly reminded of, however, is that it is not about winning the argument. Better to lose an argument if it means that I might win a soul. He who wins souls is wise (Prov. 11:30). It’s easy to over-intellectualize and lose sight of the goal. And, as a couple of people noted, most people are persuaded not by our arguments, but by encountering God—by seeing Christ in us.

The athiest attorney at work seems most persuaded when I simply admit that I don’t have all the answers. He has an incredible mind (meticulous and rational, to the point of fault)–he refuses to accept anything by faith. But my earnest hope is for his salvation.

On top of that I don't see anyplace in the Bible where “apologist” is listed as a spiritual gift. Apostle, prophet, teacher, but no office of apologist. (“Mercy” is probably far more important than winning arguments I would think.) So there's really no biblical basis for a person to just sit around answering questions nobody is asking, and that's what I see many apologists doing.

So the problem I see with the conservative apologist of today is this: in wanting to defend the faith he tries too hard to be intellectual and ends up stifling intellectualism (evolution for example, and one could ask why not apply biblical literalism to the heliocentric model of the universe as well.). Second, in wanting to prove the factuality of Christianity he ends up “protecting” people from being confronted with some of the hard realities out there thay God may be wanting to use in order to stretch people's faith.

In these ways the apologist of today is a far cry from the apologists of the early church era, and actually he works against his own cause.

Go ahead and tear this apart, but when you go to bed at night pray about it some more.