> >SJ> This is just semantics, grounded in shifting definitions of
> >"science" and "evolution". I get constantly reminded by TEs that
> >science must be methodologically naturalistic to be science at all:
>
> LH>Not by this one you don't!
>
> Good. So you don't claim that "science must be methodologically
> naturalistic to be science at all"?
Nope. MN is used by most science most of the time, but I do not think
it is a _necessary_ feature of science. It wasn't in the past, and
it need not be so in the present or the future. I've got half a dozen
posts in the archives talking about this in greater length and more
carefully.
> LH>When a scientist says that evolution is a "stochastic process..."
> >she is speaking within the bounds of science.
> >When a scientist says that evolution is a "mindless, purposeless
> >process..." she has stepped outside the bounds of science.
> >When a scientist says that evolution is a "system which God designed,
> >sustained, and guided..." she has stepped outside the bounds of science.
>
> Not if "science" is defined as your National Academy of Sciences has
> defined it, namely "naturalistic":
I'm working on that! Give me a chance! ;-)
> I repeat: I do not claim that all "SCIENTISTS" believe that
> "evolution is a mindless, purposeless, materialistic natural process"
> but that "THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING of evolution is that it is a
> mindless, purposeless, materialistic natural process".
All scientists would agree that the "... stochastic process ..."
description is a scientific understanding. NOT all scientists would
agree that the "... mindless, purposeless ..." description is
scientific. I dare bet MOST professional philosophers of
science would agree that the "... mindless, purposeless ..." description
is BEYOND scientific.
Loren Haarsma