I'd like some feedback on some thoughts I've been formulating germane
to this debate over ID.
It seems there is a continuum of beliefs along a spectrum. I'll
illustrate below:
Metaphysical Methodological Methodological Metaphysical
Naturalism Naturalism Supernaturalism Supernaturalism
Dawkins Van Till Behe Morris
_____________________________________________________________________________
It seems that ID theory is trying to come up with something we might call
Methodological Supernaturalism. It is trying to adopt as much methodological
naturalism as it can, in an attempt to reach the scientific community, and
in order to have scientific respectability, testability, etc.
In other words, there is not as big a gap as it might seem right away.
But if one tries to communicate with someone who is two stations away
along the continuum, there will be more and more problems. Or if you
try to hold on to tenets taken from stations removed from one another
on the continuum, you'll have difficulties. For instance, I don't
see how one can be both a Metaphysical Naturalist and a Methodological
Supernaturalist. I think one can be a Methodological Naturalist and
a Metaphysical Supernaturalist (as, I assume Van Till is); but you'll
have difficulty constructing any scenario under which God's activity
in the world is detectable as such. Methodological naturalism will
always play a "trump card" against such detectability.
Most people on the reflector are in the middle two categories to
some extent. Obviously there are overlaps in the adjoining
categories, that's why it is called a continuum.
What are your thoughts?
Dennis Durst