Lawrence Johnston wrote:
>I also have this problem with Phil's writing. I think my definition of
>methodological naturalism would be:
>
>a) "When trying to understand some phenomenon (such as what happened to my
>sandwich?) start by assuming that natural law applies". All of us scientist
>types do this, of course. But I would also include in my definition the idea
>that :
>
>b) "If this approach fails, then consider what other logical explanations might
>apply" (like maybe there is an intelligent sandwich thief lurking nearby)
>
It seems to me that part of the reason for the disagreements on this issue is the inherent difficulty of determining when natural law explanations have failed. Johnson and Dembski think that they have "proved" (or some similarly strong statement) that natural explanations have failed. But the people who have spent their careers actually studying biological systems nearly all think that they have not failed.
Preston G.
Preston Garrison, Ph.D.
Instructor
UTHSCSA-Biochem. Dept. Insert the usual disclaimers here.
MSC 7760
7703 Floyd Curl Dr.
San Antonio, TX 78229-3900
garrisonp@uthscsa.edu
210-567-3702
http://biochem.uthscsa.edu/~barnes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 18:15:25 EDT