Home » Intelligent Design » What Evolutionists Don’t Understand About Methodological Naturalism

What Evolutionists Don’t Understand About Methodological Naturalism

July 5, 2011 Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design
2 Comments

OK let’s try this again. One more time, this time with pictures. In their celebrated volume  Blueprints, evolutionists Maitland Edey and Donald Johanson argued that “What God did is a matter for faith and not for scientific inquiry. The two fields are separate. If our scientific inquiry should lead eventually to God … that will be the time to stop science.” Similarly for evolutionist Niles Eldredge, the key responsibility of science—to predict—becomes impossible when a capricious Creator is entertained:  Read more

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

2 Responses to What Evolutionists Don’t Understand About Methodological Naturalism

  1. 1
    MungJuly 5, 2011 at 9:49 pm

    But the Creator obviously could have fashioned each species in any way imaginable. There is no basis for us to make predictions about what we should find when we study animals and plants if we accept the basic creationist position. … the creator could have fashioned each organ system or physiological process (such as digestion) in whatever fashion the Creator pleased. [The Monkey Business, p. 39, Washington Square Press, 1982.]

    So the basic creationist position is that the Creator fashioned each species in any way imaginable?

    …the creator could have fashioned each organ system or physiological process (such as digestion) in whatever fashion the Creator pleased.

    Really? So the Creator could have fashioned the circulation system from the nervous system and had it perform the functions of the digestive system?

    And this is objectionable because we have no way to test the hypothesis that the circulation system was fashioned from the nervous system and it performs the functions of the digestive system?

  2. 2
    MungJuly 5, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    and therefore whenever we mandate, a priori, a method such as naturalism, we automatically exclude a set of explanations that might be true.

    Science isn’t about truth.

    It follows that science is not about true explanations.

    So, get rid of the green circle.

    Science can only tell us about what is in the orange area.

    Those are the scientific explanations.

    Those explanations are the only explanations which can be trusted.

    It follows that orange is green, and that ovals are circles.

Leave a Reply