> I'd like some feedback on some thoughts I've been formulating germane
> to this debate over ID.
> It seems there is a continuum of beliefs along a spectrum. I'll
> illustrate below:
>
> Metaphysical Methodological Methodological Metaphysical
> Naturalism Naturalism Supernaturalism Supernaturalism
>
> Dawkins Van Till Behe Morris
> _______________________________________________________________________
[snip]
> I think one can be a Methodological Naturalist and
> a Metaphysical Supernaturalist (as, I assume Van Till is); but you'll
> have difficulty constructing any scenario under which God's activity
> in the world is detectable as such. Methodological naturalism will
> always play a "trump card" against such detectability.
non-topical comment: from my personal knowledge of Van Till, I'm pretty
sure he reserves methodological naturalism for the natural sciences. He
would not condone MN for interpreting salvation history, and probably
not for any later/modern events which seem credible miracles.
this leads into...
topical comment: It's worth noting the *kinds* of questions to which
this spectrum applies. On "why" questions (questions of meaning and
theology), there is no spectrum, but rather a large gap between Dawkins
on one side and Van Till, Behe, and Morris on the other. (There may,
perhaps, be some sort of spectrum, but you'd have to find other people
to fill in the gap.)
However, on questions of "how" and "when" (questions of *mechanism*), I
believe there is such a spectrum, though I wouldn't use those labels.
All four of those people apply methodological naturalism, and advocate
the use of MN, at certain times and for solving certain problems.
Morris uses MN in natural science whenever he can, provided it doesn't
conflict with certain developments in physical and biological history
which he
believes must have been miraculous, due to his interpretation of
Genesis. Behe applies MN more broadly, but has decided to augment it
for certain developments in biological history. Van Till applies MN
more broadly, but augments it when considering salvation history and
other religious occurrences. Dawkins applies MN to *everything*,
including all religious occurrences. In all four cases, their decision
comes from a mixture of their scientific AND religious experiences and
beliefs.
Loren Haarsma