As a layman, I simply cannot understand the debate over whether a
commitment to methodological naturalism is/is not a prerequisite for doing
science. Is it overly simplistic to define science as "the study of
phenomena and their causes?" If so, it would seem that science should
search for truth, and should go wherever the search leads. Particularly as
regards the design/descent argument, isn't the pertinent question, "what
happened?" rather than "what is the proper methodology?" If the true answer
is, "God did it, all at once," do we not want to know it? IMO, the debate
over whether to include/exclude God from science turns on whether we truly
want to deal with the answer. The response, "well, God *may* have done it,
but that's not for science to decide," is question-begging at its worst.
Chuck
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Warman
cwarman@sol.wf.net
"The abdication of Belief / Makes the Behavior small."
--- Emily Dickinson