In a message dated 10/2/2000 12:13:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
> I can't answer for all creationists but *my* position is that the
> evolutionists
> (theistic and atheistic) have a united front against creationism and often
> act
> in concert against creationists because they share a common naturalistic
> *philosophy* which they sincerely believe to be the *truth*.
>
>
There is a methodological naturalism which recognizes "... that scientific
research proceeds by the search for chains of cause and effects and confines
itself to the investigation of natural entities and forces. Science does not
'assume away' a creator -- it is simply silent on the existence of a good. "
[...]
"Methodological naturalism places a boundary across what science can and
cannot say, or waht explanations or descriptions can be accepted as part of
the scientific enterprise. Science is self-limiting and that is its strength
and power as a methodology. Science pursues truth within very narrow limits."
Keith B Miller in the excellent book Darwinism Defeated ? By Lamoureux and
Johnson. Miller is among several people who point out the errors in Johnson's
arguments.
See also
http://humanism.net/~schafesd/naturalism.html
"Philosophical naturalism itself exists in two forms: (1) ontological or
metaphysical naturalism and (2) methodological
naturalism. The former is philosophical naturalism as described above; the
latter is the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within
scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it. As will be
exhaustively discussed below, science is not metaphysical and does not
depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success (although
science does have metaphysical implications), but methodological
naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to
succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of
naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if
nature is all that there is. This is methodological naturalism."
or
http://members.aol.com/glauconii/creationism.html
It seems that Stephen is making the same logical fallacy that Johnson has
made. If one confuses ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism
then one is likely to reach the erroneous conclusions found in Johnson's
arguments and it seems also in Stephen's.
Pennock
http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/review_robert_pennock.htm
http://pennock.tcnj.edu/research/publications.html
"owever, Johnson fails to distinguish
Ontological Naturalism from Methodological Naturalism. Science makes use
of the latter and I show how it is not dogmatic but follows from sound
requirements
for empirical evidential testing. "
Van Till
http://www.origins.org/ftissues/ft9306/articles/johnson.html
Links to Naturalism and Philosophy.
http://human.st/bernt_rostrom/natlinks.htm
Enterprising science needs naturalism, Wesley Elsberry
http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Elsberry.
html
"I will connote "naturalism" as "proposing only natural mechanisms for
physical phenomena" rather than "asserting that only natural mechanisms have
existence". It is easy enough to define terms such that they become useless
to anyone, which is how I view those who would make "naturalism",
"scientism", and "scientific materialism" all synonymous. Science is
incompetent to examine those conjectures which cannot be tested in the light
of
inter-subjective experience or criticism. The assertion that "only natural
mechanisms have existence" is equivalent to the claim that "no supernatural
causes exist". That is an example of proving a negative, and can only be
regarded as a statement of faith, since it requires omniscience on the part of
the claimant. "
Is Science a religion Dawkins
http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/publications/humanist/dawkins.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 03:37:39 EDT