Common Narrative with ID on MN

Conversation
,
48

@pnelson, thanks for playing this out for me.

I think we are really close. How about this?

  1. MN rules out God as a cause in scientific explanations. In practice, science includes intelligent design as a cause, as long as the intelligence is anything other than God.

  2. In principle, ID conflicts with MN, because it does not want intelligent design by God, divine design, to be excluded from scientific purview.

  3. For now and the foreseeable future, MN excludes divine design from science, whether we like it or not.

  4. ID (and others) objects that MN, in practice, is not properly bounded by nearly all of its proponents, so in practice it often becomes just naturalism, which conflicts with Christianity by denying God’s action in the world. Consistently applying naturalism would deny the Resurrection and the possibility of miracles.

  5. Somehow, following MN, the GAE made space for the de novo creation of Adam and Eve. An important question: how? What does this tell us about how to navigate the reality of modern science (3) without importing naturalism into our thinking (4)?

@pnelson does this work for you? You also say “nearly all its proponents”. I like that space you are making. Do you think I personally fall prey to the pitfalls of MN? If not, why not?