> George Murphy says,
>
> >Let's be blunt: The root of such criticisms of theistic evolution is
> >theological ignorance.
>
> Really? It seems that what Paul/JMR (and I) say about the possibility
> of science being restricted by Methodological Naturalism (or Functional
> Integrity) has some basis other than theological ignorance. It seems to
> be straightforward logic: If there are any restrictions on what science
> "cannot conclude" (or what God "cannot do"), the scientific freedom of a
> scientist will be diminished. { Perhaps we can critique other parts of
> what Paul/JMR have said about the advantages of YEC over OEC or TE, but
> this question -- whether a "cannot" or a "must" is justified -- is a
> separate issue; it isn't directly relevant when we are asking whether a
> "cannot" or a "must" will exert an influence that tends to restrict
> scientific freedom.
IDs typically (I don't of course claim that this applies to each & every one)
want on the one hand to say "nobody here but us philosophers &/or scientists", but on
the other hand want to make statement about "God" or "The Intelligent Designer". Thus
they apparently think to absolve themselves of any need to subject their theological
presuppositions & positions to scrutiny while being able to make theological claims.
As far as the claim to be doing only science or philosophy of science is
concerned, MN is no more restricted than ID, for the latter (regardless of what its
proponents may say) amounts to a declaration that some things (those that have been
found to be the result of divine intervention) should not be investigated further by
science. In reality, I suspect (& this could be checked if the IDs presented their
theological views) that the real objection to MN is that God has to "make a difference"
(i.e., show off) by doing things that science can't explain. That's a rather inept
version of Christian theology.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/