Re: The Terms of Debate in Kansas

Randy,
You asked a question, so I kept the section on methodological naturalism.
And I have a comment on macroevolution.

The phrase, "without the possibility of supernatural influence." is
wrong. It is that natural causes are the only ones that we can experiment
with. Methodological naturalism is totally compatible with the theistic
view that all things are held together by Christ now, and have their
source in creation by the Word. There are no blinders, except for those
who want to substitute "God did it by fiat" for "I don't know" or "I
don't yet know."

When I first took courses in zoology, the professor noted that during
embryonic development everything was going on at the same time, yet it
almost always came out right. How could you explain it? He waved his
hands, looked up, and said, "God." Now we are beginning to understand the
genetic and proteomic controls, why certain mutations produce specific
results, etc. We still don't know why creatures develop normally when
some apparently vital genes are knocked out, or why double knockouts can
seem normal when single knockouts are lethal or semilethal. Why do I
believe that God is as much involved now as when I took the first
classes? Why can't I hold that he is defined by my ignorance?

When flood geologists got to calculating what would be required to have a
pair from each species, prehistoric and current, along with food, they
found that it was impossible. The earlier assertions of sufficient room
were based on the number of individuals that could be transported in
stock cars, which could be pulled onto a siding to feed and water the
creatures. Since there are no sidings for the care during the Flood's
duration, they revised the Ark's cargo to have only a pair from each
genus or family, who, after the Flood, would reproduce the various
species. This means that there would be speciation within a few hundred
years--a requirement that they do not reveal while they are arguing
against "Darwin." They are obfuscators or worse.
Dave

On Sun, 15 May 2005 21:20:34 -0400 "Randy Isaac"
<rmisaac@bellatlantic.net> writes:
Printed in the NYTimes today: they got some of the definitions right. I
hadn't thought of methodological naturalism in this way. Is this how
you-all would define it? I had always considered the method in question
was that of scientists, not of nature.

Randy

Methodological Naturalism
The philosophy of mainstream science that nature has its own method,
without the possibility of supernatural influence on, say, how DNA is
sequenced. William S. Harris, a chemist who helped write Kansas'
alternative science standards questioning evolution, said that
methodological naturalism puts blinders on the search for truth.
Macroevolution
The notion that one species can evolve into another, a view that is
rejected by creationists and some intelligent designers.
Received on Sun May 15 23:20:26 2005