Either way, I think it is time to convene the Darwinian Holy See and determine if the accused are guilty of heresy against the Church of Common Descent!!!
[just in case it isn’t obvious, the above is dripping with sarcasm]
2 Likes
That much is obvious. What isn’t obvious is the target.
1 Like
It would certainly be educationally valuable ro find a Behe text where he treats them separately. But in my view, Behe treats Creation as so synonymous with Scientific procedures, i seriously doubt such a distinction will be found for Behe.
I am open to @Agauger having made such distinctions … but her writings in the recent TOME suffer from a constant fusion of the 2 ideas when frequent distinction would have earned her considerably more credit from the Pro-Evolution camp!
@T_aquaticus has the judgment of a Solomon. [equally dripping 
]
@gbrooks9 The quote is not mine. That is Swamidass. I had to way back to find the source text, and I am not sure I have found it yet. Is this about whether ID advocates believe life was created by separate distinct acts, or by guided evolution, or by some combination of the two? The answer is, depending on the person, yes. I’m pretty sure Behe fits in the guided evolution category. Paul’s probably category number 1. Right now I am probably category 3.
1 Like
@gbrooks9 is trying to make clear that design and evolution are not necessarily in conflict. God could have created through common descent.
If you accept guided evolution as a means to design, then yes. If you want the design to be front-loaded that’s OK too. God is involved though.
@Agauger
Ah, the vaguest category. Could you present some indication of what you hypothesize was separately created and what was guided?
@Agauger
I would also like to know what “front-loaded” means to you.
@John_Harshman
Sorry. That’s not my deal.
What’s not your deal? This does not appear as a reply to anything.
So you don’t have the faintest clue or when, or where, or by what physical mechanism this claimed “Design” occurred. You just know in some mysterious way the Christian God is responsible. Is that your official ID position?
Why should I? Give good reason.
No. I was asked to describe ID positions. There are many. There is no one official position.
If you want us to think ID is scientific you should at least have some small idea of the details, shouldn’t you? Getting an IDer to commit to anything testable is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
So ID is a scientific theory but ID has no official position on what, when, where, or how things actually happened. Don’t you think there is a slight disconnect in those two things? 
The problem is not me, the problem is you, and others who act like you… Those who heckle me, insult, misrepresent, and twist the things I say. I know what I think I just have no reason to share it with you. I have no need to please or impress you, or frankly anyone else on this forum.
I try to answer, when I answer, out of good will, and honestly, and to be honest when I cannot answer for reasons of prudence. Heckling me just makes you look bad @Timothy_Horton.
1 Like
Front-loading is not my deal…
1 Like
Yes, darn those from the science community who expect ID public figures to actually back up what they claim. Better to dodge the tough questions as “heckling” than admit how little substance ID actually has. Mission accomplished!
@Agauger ,
As we know, Behe is the darling of the ID crowd…while not once “coming out” in favor of de novo Adam/Eve. This is the proof that ID proponents automatically equate ID as equal to miraculous creation.
I agree with you about Behe’s position being essentially Guided Evolution.
So: Dr. G. other than the special creation of just Adam and Eve (and if we set aside the probable need for God to turn inorganics into the first living things by means of guided biochemistry)…
… what seems to be the time or event most likely suggesting super-natural creation rather than more guided evolution?