David,
I don't understand your comments about "George Murphy's views on
methodological naturalism" being "religion."
Based on George's comments, his view of MN seems to be pretty
standard, and is the way that we we do science. (And I would argue
that this is the way that we SHOULD do science.) It is
METHODOLOGICAL, not METAPHYSICAL naturalism. It makes no religious
claims at all, and keeps science neutral with respect to religion.
What am I missing?
Kirk
On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:56 PM, David Clounch wrote:
> This is why I oppose George Murphy's views on methodological
> naturalism. To me it's religion and I want that religion separated
> from school as far as the east is from the west.
> I don't mind if George Murphy holds his view personally because he
> is entitled to his religion. I just don't want a public school to
> base its science curriculum on George's religion.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Apr 2 15:40:38 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 02 2009 - 15:40:38 EDT