Bertvan:
Yes. If it has a strong _a priori_committment to any unprovable concept, it
isn't methodological naturalism..
Hi Brian:
Everyone is responsible for modifying their individual religion, world view
or philosophy to be compatible with reality as they see it. Some Theists
have apparently even successfully adapted to Darwinian Fundamentalism; others
can't. For several centuries we have trusted science to define reality.
What if people stopped trusting science? It was only recently that some
official science organization deleted from their definition of evolution:
"Evolution is a contingent, random process--without plan, meaning or purpose."
Some materialists expressed indignation at the deletion. However, no one can
possibly know whether ANYTHING in nature is "random, without plan, meaning or
purpose". If scientists make dogmatic statements about things they can't
know, people might lose trust in them. Personally, I am suspicious of any
biologist who offers an emotional defense of Darwinism (whatever Darwinism
means). Some people claim they don't give a damn what the public
thinks--those apparently more eager to "defeat" creationists, rather than
find common ground for coexistence. You were disappointed that common ground
wasn't a definition of methodological naturalism. I'm disappointed it isn't
"design". No one can possibly know whether the universe was designed.
Nevertheless, many defenders of Darwinism seem to regard "design" as another
form of creationism--something to be attacked and stamped out.
Bertvan