You said you were giving only a couple of pushbacks, but then gave three.
On the first point, I agree that being an ID proponent does not by itself guarantee theological soundness. On Behe, I don’t think he has said enough in detail about theology to anyone to assess all his theological views. However, in what he has said about his Catholic Faith, and about God, I have seen none of the flirtations with Open Theism that are found in the writings of certain ECs (Polkinghorne and Oord explicitly, but there are plenty of hints in Miller, Falk and others), nor have I seen any other sign that he departs from conventional Catholic orthodoxy on any Christian doctrine; whereas many EC leaders seem to be constantly pushing the envelope, whether about God’s sovereignty, Adam and Eve, the Fall, the reliability of the entire Bible, and other things. I have every reason to believe that insofar as Behe holds to a theological position, it is a mainstream Catholic position, and such a position, however much I might differ from it in some details, is still broadly within the boundaries of orthodox Christian faith. (As are traditional Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican and many other positions.)
In any case, I’m not setting up Behe as an authority on Christian or Catholic theology, and I don’t think he claims to be such. He has said that his ID investigations are motivated by scientific interest, not theological interest, and I take him at his word. That may not be true of all ID proponents – it may be that for some of them the theological interest is the motivation for supporting ID. But I think it’s true of Behe, and of Denton, and of some others: there is a genuine theoretical interest in ID that is not governed by Christian apologetics.
On your next point, I would never deny Pascal, Newman or Barth a place at the theological table. My objection to the repeated invocation of their names – always in the context of attacks on ID – is that they are being set up by certain EC writers as paradigms of good Christian theology, when in fact they are just theologians, and therefore mortal, capable of error. If Barth says that no natural theology is possible, that’s fine, but if he expects me to agree with him, he has to give his reasons – especially given that all the pre-modern Titans of Christian tradition disagree with him. And if don’t find his reasons compelling, I can deny his conclusions. He is not the Pope of Protestantism, who can dictate doctrine and expect conformity from all Protestants.
Remember, Joshua, many ECs have said outright that ID is “bad theology” – and then have gone on to invoke Barth, Pascal and Newman as the corrective. I would rather these ECs said, “I personally don’t prefer the theological idea of a God whose design is detectable; I personally prefer the portrait of God’s hiddenness that I see in Pascal, etc.” That would be humbler; it would be admitting the subjectivity of the EC’s judgments; the claim of “bad theology”, on the other hand, implies that the EC in question knows so much Christian theology that he is qualified to referee between Barth and Paley – which is absurd, when most of the ECs making these judgments haven’t read nearly enough of the primary sources in theology to make such a final judgment. It would take a doctoral-level knowledge on natural theology to make such a judgment.
I agree that there aren’t many people around trained well in both science and theology, but there are more of them than people think. One needn’t necessarily have a Ph.D. in both to be knowledgeable in both. One might have a Ph.D. in biology and a Master’s degree in theology or religious studies. On one might have a Master’s in Physics followed by a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible. There are people like this, but most of them are busy doing academic teaching and research work in universities, and aren’t spending their time blogging. But I agree with you that in practice we don’t always have doubly trained people handy, and have to make do with interdisciplinary conversation.
That works, best, however, when there are no chauvinistic professional assumptions underlying the discussion, e.g., the assumption that science gives reliable, objective knowledge whereas theology is subjective and all its conclusions uncertain. (Often in these discussions, if “science” supposedly says something is impossible, the theologians and Biblical interpreters are just expected to change their interpretation or their systematic theology, whereas it never works the other way around, that the scientists are expected to change their theories or review their data if the implications of their theories clash with orthodoxy.) Interdisciplinary dialogue also works best when scientists who don’t have much theological knowledge don’t get brittle and defensive when some of their claims are questioned. Certainly in the past some of the figures on BioLogos have been very defensive, and very unwilling to concede any points to people trained in theology. (As, e.g., when Darrel Falk spoke of the Wesleyan tradition of the “freedom of nature”, but then, when shown that Wesley said nothing of the sort, abandoned the discussion without retracting or modifying. That kind of defensiveness by scientists who dabble in Christian theology gets in the way of genuine progress in dialogue.)