I think you are mistaken. Why? Because in the video of Behe (pre-Darwin Devolves), Behe is quite content that the Pool Ball Shot represents God’s design input into a natural process.
So I’m predicting that the interview you provide in your next post does not retract his earlier assertions.
I’ll get back to you on that … as soon as I finish reading the whole interview.
I read the paragraph where you think Behe “says the opposite”… if so, it sure isn’t in that paragraph. It just SOUNDS like he says the opposite. You’ll have to do better than that paragraph.
You’ve given me your inferences from what he says. I’m waiting for statements. The word “created” does not imply intervention. Have you got any other words?
Maybe not. But I’m still waiting for a direct statement from Behe (not something inferred from other statements he makes) that God intervenes, breaks natural laws, or does miracles. Have you got any, or not?
Note that I have not rejected the idea that we can infer what an author thinks by reasoning from his statements. What I’m resisting is your stubbornness in insisting that your inferences are direct statements of Behe, when they are not. And sometimes they aren’t even sound inferences. You’re inferring, e.g., that because Behe uses the word “create” that he must mean direct intervention. But the whole point of front-loading is that one can create without direct intervention. So Behe’s use of “create” doesn’t settle the question. His use of “intervene” or “miracles” or “breaking natural laws” would settle it.
LOL! You came this close to getting it. Then you slid right back into your “Eddie can never be wrong about anything, ever!” mode. 
No sir. Behe is very poetic. But he does not say what you say he is saying.
If that were so then everything Behe has claimed about Irreducible Complexity in the last 20 years is dead wrong. As Roy pointed out earlier, front-loading at the Big Bang means IC systems had to evolve through stepwise evolutionary processes with no additional external intervention. Something Behe has often claimed is impossible. Are you telling us Behe is now directly contradicting himself?
@Faizal_Ali ( & @eddie )
Yes, that is true. Now Behe, and probably Eddie, would argue that you could DEDUCE that there is a God when you see something like that in the natural world.
And I would argue that this is a category error.
But if one was already a Christian, it would make perfect sense to say: This is something God must have done. And if this is the only conclusion the Christian supporter of Evolution says, there is nothing wrong with that statement, or that belief.
It’s not proof… but it is a belief that is consistent with the rest of Christianity.
But those “stepwise evolutionary processes” would not be the kind that traditional evolutionary theorists have in mind. In traditional theory, the processes are random with respect to outcome, whereas front-loaded evolutionary steps are not random with respect to outcome, but planned ahead of time to facilitate an outcome. Darwin, and virtually all evolutionary theorists since, have denied that evolution has any planned outcomes. So naturally Behe opposes most versions of evolutionary theory. But if there were an evolutionary theory in which design was built in as an essential cause, Behe would have no reason to oppose it.
The reason why Behe rejects those unintelligent processes is that they aren’t guided by an overarching plan; without such a plan, they could never deliver the goods. But with such a plan, they might well be able. But here in the interview he is addressing evolutionary views in which unintentional processes are operating without any overarching plan. He’s not talking about Denton-type evolution at all. Or if he is, you need to show that.
And Behe, and probably Eddie, would then have to show how it is determined that some particular instance of one domino falling against the other was the result of “design” and another not.
Since @Eddie is the one participating here, maybe he could answer.
Are these explicit assertions from Behe explicit and assertive enough?
Is it plausible that the designer is a natural entity?
The problem is the following. Currently we have knowledge of only one type of natural intelligent designer even remotely capable of conceiving such structures as are found in the cell, and that is a human. … Extrapolating from this sample of one, it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture.
I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity.
I should add that there is nothing in the previous reasoning to rule out the hypothesis that we terrestrials were designed by a natural designer which was itself designed by a supernatural designer, or that there was a series of designers between the supernatural one and us, or some variation of this. It simply means that at the beginning of the chain, input from beyond nature was required.
If the designer is a supernatural entity, is intelligent design an “explanation”? Is it a “miracle”?
… Well, if one thinks that the most plausible designer of life is God, then is the hypothesis of intelligent design tantamount to invoking a miracle? I think there are actually two questions here: 1) does the hypothesis imply a miracle probably happened? and 2) if so, does the hypothesis concern the miracle itself? Yes to the first, no to the second.
— Behe, M. (2001) “Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”, Biology and Philosophy 16: 685–709
I see that you’ve given up on trying to find passages of Behe, which is not surprising. It’s also not surprising that you won’t concede that you are unable to find such passages, and therefore must cede the point that Behe isn’t explicit about interventions.
No ID proponent would be so foolish as to claim that “some particular instance” is a result of design. Design can only be shown by looking at larger patterns of events. A pattern of falling dominoes that spelled out a coherent English sentence, e.g., “Michael Mann is a poor scientist,” would be evidence of design, in fact, quite intelligent design. Less complicated patterns, e.g., dominoes that spelled out only a single English letter, might well be the result of chance alone.
Wow. So no ID-creationist ever claimed the particular instance of the bacterial flagellum as an exemplar for Design. That or they’re all major league fools, is that what you mean?
Umm, are you reading the same thread I am? This one is lousy with such passages.
Yes, and that point might be at the beginning of the universe, as in front-loaded design hypotheses. In such cases, no intervention or miracles would be necessary.
Which is not required by front-loaded hypotheses.
Yep. Sounds like Denton to me.
Note the qualification “probably”.
So you’ve got, say, half of a passage where Behe endorses intervention. That’s a pretty thin case. Can you strengthen it?
Allow may to familiarize you with some of Behe’s writings on this subject:
He says the particular instance of choloroquine resistance in the malaria parasite is not the result of design.
He says the bacterial flagellum is a particular instance that is the result of design.
Any more basic ID Creationist theory you need explained?
Yep.
I agree that the thread is “lousy” in the colloquial sense of the word.
You still haven’t pointed out a passage that does the trick. Nor has anyone else. Try really, really hard to grasp the difference between “asserts” and “implies”, and maybe you will eventually get it.
No, Behe is also talking about TEs and what they don’t consider. Of course they acknowledge God as the cause, that’s the T in TE. And they also acknowledge that after God’s initial creation, natural laws, physics, unintelligent processes (use your term of choice) are all that is needed to explain the universe, life, and us. That’s the E in TE.
So I’ll ask you. What don’t TEs consider? What is it that about the Catholic educational explanation that fails to satisfy Behe?
You’re yanking “some particular instance” out of context. I got it from your question about one particular domino falling. One particular domino does not correspond to a complex entity such as a flagellum. I was relating the fall of single dominoes to single isolated mutations. Behe has never said that we can prove that any particular mutation (any individual domino fall) must have been caused by design. He has argued only that a sequence of mutations which conveniently produces something like the bacterial flagellum is not going to happen without design (just as a sequence of falling dominoes which conveniently produces a play of Shakespeare is not going to happen without design.)
I have no interest in any such theory. I’m only interested in ID theory.
Wow. Just, wow.