Eddie's Defense of Natural Theology

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Eddie

I agree that ID folks and also creationists sometimes offer weak arguments along these lines. I don’t think it would be fair to say that all ID arguments are along these lines. We would have to take them case by case.

Actually, it would be better if the ID movement got in a good habit of rejecting their own bad arguments. Why not? That is the usual way that fields build credibility, right?

@Eddie

But as this topic is natural theology rather than detailed arguments about the flagellum and specified complex information and so on, let’s not get into those here.

Natural theology would be great, but you took us to ID man! That has very little to do with natural theology. Keep it straight, right?

@Eddie

I merely assert the intellectual value of hearing their ideas, and discussing them. If even only 5% of their notions survive the test of time, they will have made a useful contribution.

Well I agree with that. In fact, I have a track record of doing just that. Perhaps someday you’ll trust my scientific assessment of what I have studied.