Appreciate your and everyone’s thoughts here… it sounds like the consensus is that Behe is erecting a clear straw man with EC in his definition, and I concur this is erroneous.
That said, I certainly don’t see it as equating with deism. While there is a spectrum as you mention, there do certainly exist those who claim their position as Christians, who acknowledge Gods involvement in miracles as the resurrection, and that God is presently guiding all things in his unseen providence, including the formation of the first life, and did so by setting up the initial conditions, and the laws of nature, so that they would proceed to create life, and mankind, those natural processes being sufficient to accomplish these feats without any further direct intervention from him.
If Christians can claim that position, and deny deism, then I cannot concur that Behe is wrapping the position as deism. At worst, he is trying to paint the entire community with the description of one wing of it. I understand it as accurate to say that some Christian EC advocates could embrace the position Behe describes, and would not be deist. So that charge simply isn’t accurate.
That said, it does seem clear Behe is painting with far too broad a brush. Though I think I understand his logic, I concur that it is appropriate to let one’s opponents define their own position.
For what it is worth, I think this is Behe’s logic: he outlines only two positions, EC, and what he terms “creationist.” By his definitions, creationist refers to anyone who allows or believes God intervened at any point since the Big Bang to help life along, and thus, by his definition, the only alternative are those who believe natural processes to be entirely sufficient such that God’s direct intervention was never needed.
So he makes a philosophical distinction:
Creationist: those who believe God has, at least once, directly intervened in the development of life, and
EC: those who believe God has not.
While I think this is in fact a useful philosophical distinction, I think it disingenuous to use terms that are already “spoken for”, and thus, whether intentionally or inadvertently, he erects a straw man in his definition of EC (and “creationist” for that matter!)
Not to mention, his definition of “creationist” thus includes both Ken Ham and those who are devout Darwinists, who yet believe that God had to directly intervene to create the first life. While I understand the need for this distinction philosophically, I think it unhelpful in the extreme to use those particular terms, as it labels many people here at Biologos as “creationists.”
Not particularly helpful.