> In view of contrary statements (i.e. that MN cannot be defended
> philosophically without the support of naturalism) some of us would
> like to see a defence of the thought that MN is "our idea".
>
> I could make a fairly strong case for the empirical sciences, but the
> reasons I would bring would not apply to the historical sciences.
For an excellent case-history in the historical sciences, I recommend a
chapter from _Portraits_of_Creation_. (It's either chapter 3, 4, or 5,
I don't remember which.) It gives the history of the geological
sciences, especially through the 18th and early 19th century. Geology
was largely dominated by Christians, confronting the evidence about the
age and history of the earth, trying to make sense of it all. The
chapter probably gives good references for further reading. (I don't
have the book here with me.)
Loren Haarsma