Why only one Designer

You don't think parsimony has any role to play when investigating reality scientifically?

LOLGet serious.We are talking about a Designer and First Causes and Uncaused Causes.What does that have to do with science?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This is such an obvious red herring ...All I'm saying is that ID and biblical creationism isn't the same thing, if theistic evolution is scientific or not is totally irrelevant.I brought it up to show that ID and creationism wasn't the same thing.Repeating the same old PRATTs doesn't make them true, jar.

And Behe is just another Biblical Creationist. He may not be a YEC, but he's still just a creationist.AbE:Honestly, there seems to be no honor among any of that crowd, they will change names or try different definitions, whatever they seem to think will squeeze by the courts.Edited by jar, : add apostropheEdited by jar, : AbE:

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

And now your just lying (unknowingly, I hope), because Behe is very clearly a theistic evolutionist and always has been.And theistic evolutionism is, by definition, not creationism.

That's like saying that Brown's Hydroplate Theory is not the same as biblical creationism.The motivation of ID is to find some scientific sounding rationale for already held religious beliefs. ID is not motivated by scientific discovery or increasing our knowledge of the natural world. If it were we would see ID proponents doing scientific research. They aren't doing that research, nor do they have any intention of doing any research.Biblical creationism is a movement that looks to attack science that conflicts with the idea that God created through supernatural means. That is exactly what ID is, and that is exactly what the proponents of ID do. ID proponents attack evolution without ever supporting their ID claims with positive evidence. Behe's entire IC argument boils down to "Not evolution, therefore ID".

Behe argues that the differences between species can not be explain by evolutionary mechanisms. That is not what theistic evolution is.

Behe believes in the fact of evolution (nested hierarchy, fossil record, etc.) but not on the Neo-Darwinian mechanism.He instead proposes directed evolution as the mechanism through which things evolved.You don,t get any more theist evolutionist then that ...

Sorry but no. As soon as you bring in some magic outside agency that meddles in the process it stops being science and becomes Creationism.And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.Edited by jar, : think not thing

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Do you, or do you not, agree that they are not the same thing ?Sure, they have similarities, and they have the same sort of connection as a rhombus and a square, but at the end of the day, this does not justify claiming that they are the same thing, because they clearly aren't.

You really are the kind of all humpty-dumpties, playing with definition and words as to fit your needs.Sorry, but putting in some 'outside magic' does not make someone automatically a creationist. It may make an idea none-scientific, but to actually be a creationist you have to think God poofed things out of nothing, not simply changed things incrementally over time.Creationism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Every creationist accepts evolution to some degree (though I'm old enough to remember when they rejected "microevolution" too). You can't use that as a criterion for separating evolutionist from creationist.What separates creationism from science is postulating a creator/director/designer.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

Depends on how you define evolution, but in any case Behe goes far beyond any limit a creationist accepts about the ToE.For example, he believes that apes and humans share a common ancestor who lived 5 or so millions years ago. This is what I mean when I say he accepts the fact of evolution I agree creationism isn't science. But that's the red herring in question here, because that is not what we are talking about.All I'm saying is that ID and creationism isn't the same thing. You can't interchangebly use both words to talk about the two.ID is one thing, creationism is another. Having common similarities doesn't make them the same thing.God it's so hard to pass such an easily understable point around here sometimes. I probably feel like you do when you talk to a creationist who keeps repeating the same PRATT ...

It has already been pointed out that the cdesign proponentsists disagree with you.Your point has been refuted a thousand times.

---

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

no, that's not right either. my understanding of the matter is that behe believes entirely in the modern theory of evolution, including all of the darwinian mechanisms, common descent, etc. he just holds that there are some special exceptions which cannot be explained by those mechanisms. he does not believe in directed evolution in the way that a theistic evolutionist would, except in a certain small regard as some direction is obviously needed to construct his irreducibly complex structures.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח