Eddie's Defense of Natural Theology

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

I don’t find the majority of specialists in most subjects – science or humanities or social science – very intellectually flexible or very willing to look at things in new ways. Most scientists and scholars are much more comfortable working within existing paradigms, filling out their details, etc. But I’ve always been attracted more to the scientists and scholars who are mavericks, who think outside the box.

This is a bit of a double edged sword. Some people are drawn to controversial science simply because it is controversial, and they fail to see that it is bad science. Certain aspects of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and epigenetics seems to be the most recent examples of bad science gaining traction among the public simply because it seems controversial.

@Eddie

I don’t much care whether ID is classed as “science” or not. I think the ID folks make too big a deal about being called “scientific.”

At least initially, the entire point of ID at the Discovery Institute was to get creationism into public school science classes. It is even detailed in the Wedge Document, which was an internal document within the Discovery Institute:

“We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

“To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
The Wedge Document

@Eddie

I’ve heard people make the idiotic claim that Michael Behe has no right to speak about evolution, because he is not a biologist, but only a biochemist, the premise being that the subject “evolution” somehow “belongs” to biologists exclusively. (But of course those same people never object when Larry Moran, also a biochemist and not a biologist, denounces Behe. Then, all of a sudden, the boundaries are relaxed.) This territorial mentality is to me non-productive.

The biggest complaint I would have is that Behe needs to do some original research and publish in peer reviewed journals. If there is any heat being directed at Behe is that he is avoiding the scientific community and not doing science. This is why I tend to have more respect for people like Douglas Axe or more recently Winston Ewert because they are at least doing something, even if it turns out to be poor quality.

@Eddie

But in fact, if we limited our thoughts on the origin of life to strictly what has been confirmed by empirical data, we would have to say that all current theories of accidental abiogenesis are in a very weak state.

It is rather telling that you only point to the lack of evidence for “accidental” abiogenesis and fail to criticize your own position. Where is the empirical data for the intelligently designed origin of life?