On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:47:19 -0600, John E. Rylander wrote:
[...]
JR>But those don't seem to be the arguments IDers make, though I admit I'm
>judging this largely on the basis of Johnson's writings (and he's nothing if
>not a polemicist and provocateur) and also Steve's seeming conflation of
>methdological and metaphysical naturalism here. (He often seems to think
>this conflation is an insight, rather than a confusion -- ah, they're really
>more or less the same thing! But, IMHO, he doesn't have a clear enough view
>on the matter to critique clearly, except that he thinks methodological
>naturalism is very bad. I've tried in exhaustive detail a year or two ago.
>No luck.)
John and I must indeed agree to differ here. After a long period of debate
and thought on this I have come to regard those theists who *espouse*
methodological naturalism, as a philosophical principle, as inconsistent
metaphysical naturalists:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 06:54:15 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>But whether I may have agreed with Brian's preferred definition of MN, I
>don't agree with it any more. I have given this a lot of thought since I
>received Brian's first message on this thread and I have come to the
>conclusion that methodological naturalism (MN) is simply applied
>metaphysical naturalism.
>
>Therefore those theists who really do *espouse* methodological
>naturalism, as a philosophical principle, I regard as metaphysical naturalists,
>but inconsistent ones.
>
>The problem for me in resolving this has been my mistaken notion that one
>must be *either* a metaphysical theist *or* a metaphysical naturalist.
>
>Yet the Bible clearly warns us that it is possible for Christians to "serve
>two masters" (Mat 6:24), to be "taken captive by a hollow and deceptive
>philosophy" (Col 2:8), and to be "double-minded" [Gk. dipsychos="two-
>souled" (Jas 1:8; 4:8).
>
>I therefore regard those Christians who *espouse* methodological
>naturalism *as a philosophical principle*, as being (to varying degrees)
>*both* metaphysical theists *and* metaphysical naturalists, albeit
>inconsistent in both.
>
>I will use Johnson's term "theistic naturalists" (TNs) to denote such
>metaphysical theists who are also metaphysical naturalists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"When we come to the origin(s) of life, both creationists and evolutionists
are forced into the role of speculators. Laboratory experiments conducted
with presumed primitive earth atmospheric conditions (methane, ammonia,
hydrogen, water) and various energy sources (electrical discharge,
ultraviolet radiation, high energy radiation, and heat) have yielded small
amounts of amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and nucleic acid
precursors (the building blocks of genetic information and components of
the protein synthesizing machinery of contemporary cells). Certain
conditions have seen the formation of microspheres, which are chemically
complex entities surrounded by a double-layered membrane suggestive of
the gross structure of certain cellular components. Creationists have looked
forward to the day when science may actually create a "living" thing from
simple chemicals. They claim, and rightly so, that even if such a man-made
life form could be created, this would not prove that natural life forms were
developed by a similar chemical evolutionary process. The scientist
understands this and plods on testing theories." (Stansfield W.D., "The
Science of Evolution", [1977], Macmillan: New York NY, 1983, Eighth
Printing, pp10-11)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------