I ignore your typically pedantic, hair-splitting claim that adding the word “traditional” to “natural theology” forces the discussion into purely Christian territory. Most writers see natural theology in the Christian era as exhibiting continuity with arguments found in pre-Christian writings. I won’t bother going through all the books I have here that demonstrate this usage, but the article on “Physicotheology” in the 8-volume Encyclopedia of Philosophy is one place where the continuity is stressed.
I can’t say much for your Latin scholarship. Aquinas uses different phrasings at the end of the various Five Ways arguments. He interchangeably employs “and this we call God” “and this all (men) call God” “and this all (men) name God”. “All men” (which translates omnes) clearly means all human beings, not “all European Christians of this era”; and even if he had used “we” every time, since he is making a broad philosophical argument, it wouldn’t necessarily pertain to only Christians. Your pedantry, and your research sloppiness, are showing here.
The God whose existence can be verified without any need for the Bible can be identified with the God referred to in the Bible, with extra information possessed by Christians, but the argument established only a generic God, not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The reference to the Bible is in no way part of the argument.
But I already adjusted my claim, so your continued attempt to score a debating point is petty. Even “offered” could be taken in a weak sense, but I will settle for “presented”; the point is that he regarded such arguments as within the province of philosophy, requiring no theological commits or assumptions derived from Christianity.
I did not offer this as my own definition, or if I did, it certainly is not the one I usually offer here. It is too vague, and could cover a great deal, or very little, depending on how it is read.
I said several times that by evolution I meant “descent with modification”, and elsewhere have added that the descent runs all the way from one or a few simple organic forms down to all later organic forms, including man. And I have correctly stated that Discovery has taken no position against evolution understood in this sense. Individual Discovery writers, speaking for themselves, have expressed doubts about evolution, but Discovery itself has said that evolution is not incompatible with ID theory. Many times.
Show me where, in the four books by Denton published by Discovery, he argues against evolution. If Discovery was against evolution on principle, it would not publish Denton’s books.
Note that Johnson employs scare quotes, an indicator that he is using the word “creationist” in a sense different from what many readers might understand by the term. I would submit that Johnson is distinguishing an “evolutionary creationist” from a “creationist” as typically understood, i.e., as I have outlined in my article above. Another way of putting this is that ID is not, as such, against “evolutionary creation,” where evolutionary creation is understood as a planned or guided process. (Contrast with most BioLogos and most ASA versions of evolutionary creationism, whose proponents wriggle and squirm when asked to commit to guidance or planning of any kind in the evolutionary process.) Johnson’s statement is not out of line with anything I’ve said, or any definition of ID on Discovery.
That doesn’t follow. A theory can exist in partly developed form, not yet ready to be included in science class.