"This has nothing contrary to a my panentheistic view. All the major religious traditions have the concept of "kenosis" (self limitation) relating to God's presence in the world. I affirm that each organism does its own design within its own context but also within the context of the whole. I think there is a lot of scientific confirmation of this as seen in ecological research."

The concept of kenosis is usually applied to the incarnation of Christ. In fact, it is a biblical term (Philippians 2:7). However, in his book, God after Darwin, John Haught extends the idea of kenosis to God as Creator. I find this to be something of an interesting idea that does not necessarily conflict with a more classical form of theism. It does, in fact, in my opinion, solve a number of problems. For example, it allows an omniscient and omnipotent being to step aside and passively observe rather than micromanage his creation.

Personally I do believe that God does intervene in his creation, but He does so only occasionally and episodically. How does this concept relate overall to the idea of evolution? From an interventionist point of view there are really a number of possibilities; every thing from special creation of distinct species to the FLE ideas that many at Telic Thoughts adhere to. Personally I lean towards more towards a middle position though that is nothing that I am dogmatic about.

I'd be interested in hearing more of your thinking about this. I think it is not only an interesting, but also an important line of inquiry.

Thank you for the head's up.

I looked through it when you first posted it. It is impressive.

I am continually fascinated by the energy and earnestness of the ID proponents around the time Behe's Black Box was published. I really mean it when I say I believe Behe was honestly trying to do science when he wrote that. EAM advocates including Joy had a mechanistic model. MikeGene was pushing the ID movement to do the science before trying to introduce it into schools.

Too bad the ID Movement leaders didn't listen.

EAM has been relegated to something "way down on the totem pole" that is only brought out when the ID Movement needs to hide its religious agenda.

Behe succumbed to political pressures and watered down his hypothesis to the point it is practically non-existent.

It really makes me wonder why MikeGene isn't more disgusted with the ID Movement than I am.

Maybe he is.

Thank you for the acknowledgement.

Also thank you for the post.

I enjoyed see Nick Matzke's film clip again.

As far as the NOMA boundary is concerned, the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model provides a pretty clear indication of the limit of scientific investigation. The limit is the non-deterministic, non-random nature of the interconnected quantum effects. We will probably never know what is behind the quantum effects. I say "probably" because I don't know the Truth of metaphysical things like that.

I think this is fair. Epistemologically science can take us only so far then for many religious people another epistemological and existential source can be applied as well (i.e. religious sensibility, mysticism, religious experience, Calvin's "sensus divinitatus", Tillich's "mystical a priori", etc). This may not be the same type of epistemology as that of science but for many it is equally or even more compelling.

So "fair" is a scientific term now is it?

I linked fair to the addressing of supporting scientific data. Since science is empirical in nature this is more precise than critical thinking which can apply to non-empirical matters as well.

You wrote…

For reasons that are unclear you're being pedantic.

For reasons that are all too clear you are being as stubborn as I am.

So "fair" is a scientific term now is it?

I'm willing to let this go to the jury as is.

TP: I disagree"¦

CRITICAL THINKING is essential to good science and sound thinking.

"Fair" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

"Honest" in this case would be honesty to yourself, there no reason to advertise it.

For reasons that are unclear you're being pedantic. Fair was defined in a manner consistent with good science.

I suspect and hope the readers understand the connotative differences between the words "critique" and "criticism". You chose to employ the latter.

Fair and honest criticism is essential to good science and sound thinking.

I disagree…

CRITICAL THINKING is essential to good science and sound thinking.

"Fair" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

"Honest" in this case would be honesty to yourself, there no reason to advertise it.

TP: I was responding to Bradford's "fair and honest criticism" remark. It practically reeked of righteousness.

You're projecting. A fair critique of a scientific position entails addressing the scientific data supporting that position. Readers know what honesty and dishonesty are. Fair and honest criticism is essential to good science and sound thinking.