> Perhaps its a good idea to define methodological naturalism. I take it
> as a recognition of the limits of science (but not on the limits of
> reality, of course). I am in agreement with the above, ID might be
> right and God may actually have "intervened" (don't like that word:)
> in biological history. But the real question is whether or not the
> methods of science could ever detect such supernatural intervention.
> This is what I mean by recognizing the limits of science.
> It's one thing to say that supernatural intervention "... will ultimately
> be detectable". Quite another to actually suggest how it could be detected.
> Suppose God intervened according to some orderly plan. How then could
> we possibly distinguish the results of such intervention from natural law?
> Laws are just descriptions of observed regularities. And if God intervened
> in ways that we could not identify any pattern, what then? How could we
> say anything but "well, I really can't see any pattern to these events".
I suspect it would happen something like this:
First, empirical science would conclude that some historical development
simply cannot be explained with known natural mechanisms. That is as
far as "science" could take the matter; philosophical considerations
would move to the forefront.
Several alternatives could be offered at this point to explain the
historical development: unknown natural mechanism, supernatural event,
super-human event, extremely unlikely natural event. Philosophical
preferences will play a large role in making that decision for each
individual; HOWEVER, it is not a *purely* philosophical matter. It
could have practical consequences for how future research is conducted.
Each different possibility might point researchers in different
directions. And the wrong choice could lead to unfruitful research.
"Science" restricted to methodological naturalism is restricted to the
first option, or possibly the fourth. It cannot consider the second or
third option, along with their potential consequences.
Now, if there is no identifiable pattern in these hypothetical
historical developments, then "supernatural events" might still be the
correct answer, but it won't help the research very much. If, on the
other hand, there *is* an identifiable pattern in these historical
developments, then the "supernatural" and "superhuman" options will
become highly preferable, and potentially a good deal more fruitful in
directing research.
Science can't detect God. It can detect events with "no known natural
explanation." It can detect patterns. Philosophy and religion have to
take over from there. But sometimes, philosophical and religious
beliefs can point one in the right scientific direction.
That's about as far as I'm willing to go on that one (which, I'm afraid,
isn't far enough for some ID theorists, oh well). There's a whole
thread on this topic in the archives entitled "Science and supernatural
events," April 1996.
Loren Haarsma, who thinks Philosophical Naturalists should give proper
attribution to theists whenever they borrow our idea of methodological
naturalism. ;-)