Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")

It seems strange to suggest that deterministic causality is some sort of unbreakable natural law when there is physical evidence to suggest otherwise whilst in the same breath assuming 'eternity' to be something more than a very human abstract concept despite there being no evidence for the actual existence of 'eternity' or the 'eternal' whatsoever.In terms of the actual evidence available your thinking seems very back to front.

Summarising your argument it would seem that you believe the question to essentially boil down to -'Something from nothing' Vs 'Eternal existence'You effectively assert that either one OR the other must be true.You then out of hand reject 'Something from nothing' as obviously impossible and embrace 'Eternal existence' as the obvious conclusion.
(Your basis for choosing one over the other is somewhat unclear??)Throughout you implicitly assume that anything eternal MUST be God.Is that a fair summary?If so the whole argument can be decided by determining which of the two theories ('something from nothing' or 'eternal existence') has the better arguments and evidence on it's sideScience has some fairly speculative and untested theories derived from the principles of quantum theory and extrapolation of observed phenomenon pertaining to the 'something from nothing' position.1) How does your theory of eternity measure up to these 'something from nothing' theories in terms of foundation and evidence?
2) Is there any rational reason to believe that anything 'eternal' is necessarily God rather than something naturalistic (an eternal external 'home' to multiple universes to take an EVEN MORE speculative example?)I am conscious that all of this is woefully off topic so I shall make this my last post on this subject unless you are keen to take it elsewhere.Am interested to hear your responses to the above questions but will effectively let you have the last word.Stay happy

I am not wholly convinced by the consensus approach you outline.If ID/creationism were to become the majority view amongst the science community would that in itself make it more 'scientific'??I don't think so and I am not sure I believe you do either.
The issues are deeper than that. Whether we like it or not 'truth' is not a democratic decision (no matter who those deemed qulified enough to 'vote' may be).Is your consensus based approach founded on faith in the scientific community remaining pragamtic, objective (ish) and tolerant?
If sociological factors result in the 'scientific community' becoming obviously biased in some way (e.g. creationist) does that not pose a major flaw to your argument??

Yes having read your fuller explanation I do, broadly, agree. This still does assume that there is a scientific 'community' or 'process' that is ultimately immune to sociological factors and is purely pragmatic in nature.I fully acknowledge that there is no practical reason to doubt this 'process' to date as it has been wholly pragmatic, and empirically successful as a result, so far.However I would qualify your argument by adding that the process you outline is theoretically vulnerable to dogma should adverse sociological conditions make it likely or even necessary.In fact that is exactly what the creationist lobby claim has happened regards the theory of evolution.
So I find myself in the bizzarre position of agreeing, at least in hypothetical terms, with the creationist lobby as far as that which potentially shapes scientific consensus is concerned.................Oh no! AAArrrggghhh. Help!