[...]
>Bertvan:
>(When "methodological naturalism" is
> combined with a very strong a-priori confidence that
> materialistic theories invoking only unintelligent causes
>can account for such phenomena as genetic information and
>human intelligence,) (quote from Johnson) I don't believe it IS still
>methodological naturalism; It has become philosophical naturalism.
This is not clear to me. Would you also say that when MN is
combined with a very strong _a priori_ committment to Theism
then it is no longer MN but Theism?
Bertvan:
>But even
>more confusing than the definition of materialism, methodological naturalism
>and philosophical naturalism is the definition of Darwinism. It is my
>understanding that a bunch or scientists got together and defined Neo
>Darwinism by something called the "modern synthesis". If that definition is
>obsolete, WHAT IS DARWINISM?
>
As always, context is important. By and large though, I think
Darwinism will usually mean the neo-Darwinian synthesis. As far as I
know, it is not obsolete ;-).
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert