> As long as I'm in a feisty mood -
>
> As a layman, I simply cannot understand the debate over whether a
> commitment to methodological naturalism is/is not a prerequisite for doing
> science. Is it overly simplistic to define science as "the study of
> phenomena and their causes?" If so, it would seem that science should
> search for truth, and should go wherever the search leads. Particularly as
> regards the design/descent argument, isn't the pertinent question, "what
> happened?" rather than "what is the proper methodology?" If the true answer
> is, "God did it, all at once," do we not want to know it? IMO, the debate
> over whether to include/exclude God from science turns on whether we truly
> want to deal with the answer. The response, "well, God *may* have done it,
> but that's not for science to decide," is question-begging at its worst.
>
Reminds me of something Ken Ham said in one of his books, "Occasionally
people are upset when dogmatic statements are made. They say, "You cannot
be dogmatic like that." This itself is a dogmatic statement. Many think
that some people are dogmatic and others are not. It is not a matter of
whether you are dogmatic or not, but of which dogma is the best dogma
with which to be dogmatized!"
Randy