As I have said before… Behe’s conclusion is not scientific. The part of @swamidass’ conclusion that IS science is correctly categorizing I.D. as not Science.
I think that is very confused. Science doesn’t categorise things as science or non-science. You need philosophy of science for that, and/or sociology of science.
Compare what you write here (above)…
To what you wrote first:
All we are doing is agreeing that I.D. doesn’t produce a scientific conclusion.
If you want to quibble about whether this is philosophy or science, I don’t think it changes the outcome in any important way.
Yes we agree on that.
I get the impression though, that you see Dr. Swamidass’ GAE proposal as scientific, in contrast with ID. I don’t think it is. I see it as theology that is not in conflict with science, but that doesn’t make it scientific by itself. I don’t think GAE is meant to be a scientific claim.
I would be interested to hear from @swamidass if he can agree with that characterisation.
I certainly do make scientific claims in the book, but the whole scenario certainly extends beyond science.
1 Like
Thank you. I must confess that I have not actually read your book, so if I mischaracterise your work that is entirely my fault for which I apologise. I wasn’t suggesting that there is no science in your work, but rather that your conclusion is not a purely scientific one. Instead it is one that has its roots in theology but at the same time is permitted by science. Your thesis flies below the scientific radar, so to speak.
Is that more like it?
1 Like
No need to apologize but it is going to be hard to make sense of without reading the book.
There are scientific claims, and there are speculations that extend beyond science. The scientific claims are subject to scientific scrutiny, and the parts that extend beyond are subject to other sorts of scrutiny. My conclusions are very limited, so I’m not sure which ones you are referencing, but some of them do seem purely scientific.
1 Like
No… your observation comes from you being relatively new here not reading enough of my posts.
GAE may involve science, but it is not a scientific scenario… how could it be if it includes the miraculous de novo creation of Adam and Eve! 
And, ironically, Behe likes to think I.D. is science … but it is just as theologically or metaphysically oriented.
This is why I have been looking for the most concise and persuasive description for how I.D. fails as science.
You are right, I will stop commenting on your thesis now since I haven’t read the book.
1 Like
Allright, I think we actually agree. This discussion has gone through some confusing twists and turns. Thanks for clarifying.
2 Likes
Hope you get around to it though. I’d be curious your thoughts.
1 Like