I appreciate your thoughtful reply as there is very little I
would disagree with. I should point out that I am not
too keen on categorizing ID proponents and antagonists
simply because I don't much like labels. After all, I'm
not sure how I would label myself. I simply am
turned off by the flippant and arrogant dismissals
of ID (which don't seem to characterize your views) and
I don't see any impressive evidence for the belief that the blind
watchmaker put all of biological reality together. I think the
blind watchmaker plays a role, but to argue it is the only
or even primary actor is, in my opinion, unreasonable.
But I suppose if ID defined the status quo, the roles would be
reversed (along with my stands). :)
Anyway, I was simply trying to point out that it doesn't
make much sense to argue that MN and ID can be fused.
If MN is to have any meaning, it is to the extent that it
rules out ID. Thus, it doesn't make sense to me to argue
that you can rule out ID and be an ID proponent. But
hey, I'm no philosopher and will not pretend to be one.
That is, if someone wants to define things otherwise,
that's fine with me. All I can say is that I simply
reject the notion that I am supposed to exclude ID
as an explanatory cause in order to make sense of
the world (whatever we call this position). I'll exclude it
if the evidence merits such exclusion. I won't exclude it
because of someone else's game rules.
You write:
" For others, theists and atheists alike, methodological naturalism is a
pragmatic principle that (1) helps to define science as a study of the
natural (not supernatural) world, to distinguish it from other fields of
inquiry, (2) helps to restrict science to matters for which there are (in
principle, anyway, and ultimately) clear, mathematical, testable models
(something that presumably doesn't apply to God), and (3) has proven to be
extraordinarily fruitful over the last few centuries compared to more
inclusive methodologies (e.g., philosophy).
Methdological naturalism does limit science -- if you want the deeper
realities (if any, as I think there are), one need resort to philosophy and
religion -- but this limitation has been a tremendous pragmatic boon for
science."
I have no problem with this. My problem is that I find MN to be
useless with regards to the issues that interest me. I am not
interested in coming up with stories about natural history so that
every event is explained without reference to intelligent design.
If that were my objective, I would indeed embrace MN. But
I am interested in what happened. Was or was not X designed?
Did naturalistic evolution generate Y? MN is unable to address
these questions simply because it begins by assuming one answer
(I'm no more interested in telling stories that all end with naturalism
than I am in telling stories that all converge on design). So again, I
have no problem with MN other than its uselessness concerning the
things that interest me.
Of course, I agree that MN has been fruitful, but by far, most of
that fruit deals with how things work rather than how things came
to be. For example, MN has been very fruitful in telling us about
how mitosis works, but it bears little or no fruit in telling us about
how mitosis came to be. And that it bears fruit in one area is no
reason to think it will bear fruit in the other area. Why would I say
this? Simply because if things were designed through intelligent
intervention, MN would be expected to bear fruit. Why do I say
this? I have no doubt that my mechanic can explain how my car
works without invoking little intelligent gremlins to explain
the conversion of the potential energy in gasoline into the
kinetic energy of those spinning wheels. But if my mechanic
wants to explain the origin of my car without reference to
intelligent agents, he may be able to come up with some
interesting just so stories, but they would all be inaccurate.
Thus, the success of MN doesn't seem all that relevant to
the questions that interest me. All this means I am not
opposed to MN; I only oppose those who would force it
on me before being allowed to investigate the world.
Mike