> I don't believe that the personal belief of Dr. PEJ is that MN=PN.
> However, I do believe that Dr. PEJ believes that for most non-theistic
> scientists MN is indeed = PN for all *practical* reasons. IOW, the
> faith in MN has elevated it from a *method* to a philosophy/religion.
Phil will not go so far as to claim that MN logically entails PN, but that
they are "inseparably entangled." In other words, as a good lawyer he has
left open the possibility that the relationship is social or cultural and
not one of logical necessity.
However, as you also point out, in practice they are essentially equated by
Phil in his apologetics arguments. Phil is defining "science" by what
prominent, publicly-acclaimed scientists say it is, and not by what
Christians in science say it should be in its idealized historical or
philosophical sense.
I would add that the discussion with Phil over the limits of science needs
to first nail down which concept the word "science" will label. Phil's use
of key words vv. ASAers use of those same words often fail to correspond in
meaning. Phil's meanings are optimized for their rhetorical usefulness
while most ASAers, I notice, craft them (as Howard Van Till did) for their
conceptual power within a system of explanation intended to elucidate the
subject-matter generally.
Dennis L. Feucht
Innovatia Laboratories
American Scientific Affiliation Newsletter Editor
Great Lakes Rocket Society
14554 Maplewood Road
Townville, Pennsylvania 16360
(814)789-2100
dfeucht@toolcity.net