No. It starts with a definition. The Christian philosophers who worked so very hard to develop what became modern science and the Scientific Method realized that most of the time what we are observing in our world is happening due to the natural processes which God ordained. They never denied that it was within the purview of philosophy and theology to consider what, why, and how a transcendent God interacts with his creation. Instead, they determined that science could provide the most productive explanations and insights if it focused solely on natural processes and causes. They also assumed (based upon Biblical revelation) that God’s transcendence typically set him apart from empirical detection in contrast to other kinds of causes, the non-supernatural causes God established in the world. (They certainly didn’t deny divine miracles. They did decide that explaining natural processes as individual acts of divine intervention got them nowhere.)
I suppose that could be said of Philosophy—but not science. There are many realities which Science cannot detect empirically and therefore doesn’t care about. (I’ve listed some of those categories and examples in past threads on PeacefulScience.) Science is limited. Science only cares about that which can be explained by natural processes. That’s why science can explain the realities of evaporation and condensation in the meteorological descriptions of rain showers but not God’s providential role in sending rain on the just and the unjust. (Matthew 5:45) That’s where theology and philosophy come in. Those academic disciplines involve much broader boundaries and different methodologies than science. So let’s not give science more authority or explanatory power than what it actually has.
I would say that Science mostly cares about evidence. (Yes, that was meant to sound like an understatement.)
No. Methodological Naturalism doesn’t tell anybody what they can or cannot do in trying to understand reality. It is simply a set of tools and procedures which recognize the limitations of science. We don’t expect geometry to explain all of reality—so why should we expect science (i.e., Methodological Naturalism) to do so?
With that said, I remain entirely open to the groundbreaking discovery that divine intervention will someday be detectable by some empirical means. (I’m doubtful that that will happen before the Second Coming but a humble human must always be open to new discoveries.) And as Francis Collins likes to say, “Bring me my angel detector!” So far, ID has failed to deliver the goods.
I do realize that “ID theory” claims to be about the use of scientific methodologies to detect intelligent agency and not necessarily just God per se. Even so, one can hardly escape noticing that in the many years that “ID theory” has been promoted, there have been no breakthroughs in detecting intelligent agency—especially those which have revolutionized the work of anthropologists, geologists, and forensic scientists who must routinely determine whether a given object or phenomenon was caused by intelligent agents versus by natural physical/chemical processes.
Ditto for me. I wish @pnelson and Dr. Gauger the very best as they pursue these topics. As a born-again Christ-follower, I would be delighted at any discovery which helps us to better understand God’s interaction with the universe he created. I still think that most of what I’ve seen published by ID proponents is more about philosophy than science (even if those philosophical investigations involve science topics) but I would be very excited by an actual “ID theory” breakthrough, one that would make predictions and be subject to falsification testing.