Careful - Eddie doesn’t say it’s a correct inference. He may be once again choosing his phrasing to mislead.
2 Likes
Can you provide an example? You’ve been demanding exact quotes, references and page numbers from others, so it would be appropriate for you to provide them too.
2 Likes
The name is important, because when I refer to “traditional natural theology” I am not saying “pre-Christian Greek philosophy”. I am referring to the Christian tradition of natural theology. I am using the term as it is typically used, not with your special made up definition. When people read book titles such as “In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment”, “The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology”, “Natural Theology: With African Annotations”, “Natural Theology: With African Annotations”, and “The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology”, they’re not going to think “Oh this is a book about the Stoics and their belief in an impersonal deity who is immanent within nature”. This is even more the case with the phrase “traditional natural philosophy”.
I even quoted him for you, and you completely ignored it. He said “Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God”. The “we” there refers to Christians.
His teleological argument is in the Quinque viæ, which is explicitly his five logical proofs for the existence of God. It starts with the question “Does God exist?”, and it’s clear he’s referring specifically to the Christian God when he says this.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Ex. 3:14)
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The “God” there is very obviously the Christian God, and he even quotes the Bible directly, showing that his Quinque viæ aims at providing evidence for the existence of the Christian God.
Irrelevant. None of those need to be mentioned in order to make an argument for the Christian God.
You said he “offered a natural theology argument”. But he did not. He described them only to argue against them. He was not arguing for the existence of God using natural theology. If you ever did read Mill, you must have forgotten what he actually wrote.
You’re really not helping yourself. Your definition of evolution is “the process of organic change over time”. The Discovery Institute is not neutral on evolution as you are using the term. On the contrary, the Discovery Institute says that evolution as “the process of organic change over time” is indisputable and completely non-controversial.
Exactly. So stop saying it is neutral on evolution. If the Discovery Institute was neutral on evolution, they would not say describe evolution as a “materialistic scientific theory”, or explicitly to “Darwinian materialism”. The Discovery Institute is not neutral on evolution; they challenge the truth of particular scientific theories (such as neo-Darwinism and the theory of chemical evolution).
And let’s remember that while the DI claims to be open to the possibility of evolution being planned and/or guided, they constantly argue against it. They aren’t neutral on that either, claiming that it raises significant challenges to traditional Christian theology.
Meanwhile, remember this?
Secondly, creationism always postulates some kind of a supernatural or divine creator . Intelligent design does not try to speculate about the nature or identity of the designer because it recognizes that the scientific data alone cannot answer questions about whether the designer is supernatural . Thus ID attempts to limit its claims to what can be verified via the scientific data. That is a crucial distinction between ID and creationism , because creationism often goes beyond the scientific data and makes philosophical or religious claims about the identity of the designer.
According to this definition, the Thaxton book is not only creationism, it is not ID. It’s also easy to see how the Discovery Institute uses the term Special Creation.
“Similarly, teaching that humans arose through blind, purposeless Neo-Darwinian processes conflicts with the religious beliefs of many theist students who believe that God supernaturally intervened to make humans or other organisms through “special creation.” ”
Remember this?
Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old, and that simple forms of life evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are “creationists” if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only initiated this process but in some meaningful sense controls it in furtherance of a purpose.
That’s Philip Johnson. According to him, Denton is a creationist.
Yes I understand that this is what he wants us to believe. That’s precisely why it’s revealing.
1 Like
You don’t seem to realise that what you are saying here is that currently there is no “ID theory” which is not either creationism dressed up as ID, or non-science. That’s precisely what we’ve been telling you.
2 Likes
LOL! All I can see is you have been forced to backtrack from your claim that anyone has expicitly stated that Behe “explicitly stated” direct intervention by God is needed for life to have evolved.
Instead, you’ve been forced to rely on inference and interpretation of their words to conclude this is what they believe. And, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with that so long as the interpretations are soundly based.
But then you turn around and demand that inference and interpretation are insufficient when it comes to the things Behe has written. There, you concoct your own arbitrary rule that Behe must explicitly state a set of words that you have decided upon yourself in order to support the claim.
You’ve been busted on your blatant self serving double standard.
I think we’re about done here on this subject. Any other ways you wish to embarrass and humiliate yourself?
3 Likes
Quoted for truth.
3 Likes
Game. Set. Match. 
3 Likes
The frontloading would not be a natural process. He has already stated that the designer is God.
1 Like
What are you arguing?
The term Front-loading, as used by someone like Prof. Behe for example, is certainly a natural and lawful process. The very point he is making - - that God’s design efforts are OUTSIDE of nature - - rather than asserting that God is using miraculous efforts throughout the natural process.
You should start your part of the discussion over again, Mr. T.
You are just bobbling away from the obvious into a brand new area of confusion.
Ah, I see. So Behe is claiming that God is using a design process that is both natural and, at the same time, OUTSIDE of nature.
Sure, OK. That isn’t a totally incoherent and contradictory pile of nonsense, no siree, not all.
1 Like
I believe one idea is something like this.
- Miracles are typically understood as breaches of natural law (this is the Humean definition).
- God performed certain actions before the universe existed, and therefore before nature and natural law existed.
- Consequently these actions, though supernatural, were not miracles in the technical sense, since no natural laws existed to be broken.
This lets Behe say he believes in an intelligent designer who didn’t perform miracles (making it sound less like God).
In contrast, the Discovery Institute rejects the Humean definition of miracles, instead adopting Wallace’s definition, “Any act or event necessarily implying the existence and agency of superhuman intelligences”. I think this actually gets them into even more trouble.
2 Likes
That’s helpful. I confess, I was not previously aware of Wallace. However, his definition of “miracle” is consistent with how I typically use the term, so it would appear that I am on firm philosophical ground in using that definition and, moreover, that this is a definition endorsed by at least some adherents of ID Creationism. My view of Michael Behe’s model as one that entails the miraculous intervention of a god is therefore fully consistent with all this.
1 Like
Behe discounters all unitllegent processes - not designs - for some folds. As I said, a process is a physical implementation. Behe is saying, by asserting the negative, that an intelligent implementation is necessary.
Come on, don’t be obtuse.
2 Likes
How is the front-loading implemented if not by supernatural means?
The front-loading allegedly exists in nature, not outside of it.
Front loading occurs before the start of the universe,so no supernatural acts are needed other than the moment of creation. This is not a valid test for Creationism for it catches non creationists as well
You can’t preload a fold, the design of a fold, sure. But the physical act of folding, which is what Behe is speaking of, needs it to happen at the moment because all unintelligent means fail. That means God can’t set up physics and chemistry and mutations, etc beforehand because the are unintelligent processes
Not if front-loading only applies to life. Though front-loading is unravelling fast anyway.
Look, you atheists are going to have to come to terms with the English language. I have long been an ardent advocate of Evolution… not a trace of YEC in me… and even I UNDERSTAND what Behe is trying to describe.
So, if you want to participate in this discussion, come up with the phrasing you prefer… and maybe I will use it… maybe even Eddie will use it.
Behe describes something that is 100% natural and lawful in his God’s Billiards Shot analogy.
But before the Big Bang, God is DESIGNING, right? If you believed there is a Creator God, then you MUST believe God is outside of creation in order to accomplish the creation.
THIS is where most Christians are perfectly content investing their belief in design. It is only the I.D. proponents who then go one step further and THINK (foolishly, I believe) that the presence of the design can be proved or deduced from the facts of nature.
I interrupted this conversation because @T_aquaticus started playing “wise acre” (aka, smart aleck) with the English language… twisting elements of a topic we have all hashed out for years with relatively conventional conclusions… until now.
Your particular refutation against “pre-loading” is erroneous. Pre-loading is how any Christian Evolutionist can couch much of his or her views about God and the natural order. But that doesn’t make Behe correct.
Behe’s problem is that he cannot tell us when God is designing or not designing.
I solve the problem (and reject I.D. at the same time) by concluding that God has designed everything.