In which Eddie & T_aquaticus discuss ID, TE, and naturalism

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

To answer your first question: Nothing’s wrong with TEs taking any position they like. What’s wrong is for people like Applegate, Collins, etc. to lean on their authority as scientists to imply that they have any special knowledge of deep questions connecting philosophy, theology, and science.

Instead of arguing about your opinion of their expertise, why don’t we focus on what they are saying?

What we are discussing at the moment is not the validity of ID, but TE positions on methodological naturalism, NOMA, demarcation criteria, design inferences, etc. My remarks here are focused on these things.

Wouldn’t this necessarily require a discussion on the whether ID is valid science within the confines of methodological naturalism?