Does methodological naturalism become philosophical naturalism in public discourse?

We have discussed mainly about athiest Scientists who use Science to promote athiesm. How is that connected to your life’s work?

@Jordan: the title is misleading. No one is arguing that “most Scientists” are philosophical naturalists… I don’t know where you got that idea from.

You are just making excuses for name calling right now.
You can call people whatever you want. I will just file it under “irrelevant accusations by stressed scientist” when you do… it might also lead to people just ignoring what you have to say overall.

It’s your call.



It seems to me that this verse can be applied to:

  1. You claiming that “a lot of scientists have out forth their view using Science to back athiesm,” while only being able to name 2.
  2. Behe omitting the mutants that didn’t support his hypothesis when he was challenged on polar bear evolution.

If you take my statements and the verse itself out of context… you can…

Do you honestly think people like Dawkins or coyne don’t use science to back up claims of athiesm?


No one is laying down any such rules. It’s simply how we do science. So, how would my work be different if I did not follow methodological naturalism?

We’re not talking about any particular field; we’re talking about philosophy. You are claiming that mine is inadequate. Moreover, these walls you keep talking about between fields simply don’t exist. Genetics provides the vast majority of the evidence supporting evolutionary theory. That is just one of many reasons why your pretension of understanding evolutionary biology better than Francis Collins is so absurd, even more so when hiding behind a pseudonym.

Then you haven’t been paying attention.

Hmmm…if you weren’t taking me seriously, why did you falsely accuse me of hiding behind a pseudonym while you were hiding behind a pseudonym?

How many pages have you written in response to my posts again?

Now you’re just being ridiculous. I’ve made it perfectly clear that I’m disputing your claim that

Two isn’t “a lot,” and you know it. I know hundreds of scientists, and none are like them. Ten isn’t a lot either, and you couldn’t do it.

Why not just admit that it was a fabrication?

1 Like

So, Ashwin, explain the problem with MN in the context of my work.

Should that paper have just read, “Well, some people are dying from cardiomyopathy. It must be by design. MN would have us looking for natural causes, but we don’t use it because a wise engineer named Ashwin explained that it is “self imposed blindness.””

1 Like

Actually those two are a lot of you look at their impact/reach.
Read what I have written. You are taking a small quote and misrepresenting it.

That’s not what “a lot” means. I’m not misrepresenting your quote at all.

And physics supplies the vast majority of the basic scientific theory needed for civil engineering. But it doesn’t follow that because someone is an excellent physicist, that person is also a competent civil engineer. “I know genetics really well, therefore I am an expert in evolutionary theory” is an invalid argument.

When did I or anyone here ever suggest that you should stop following methodological naturalism in your professional work? Can you find any place where I suggested, e.g., that you should stop looking for natural causes for genetic abnormalities, and consider the possibility that demons are behind them? The main thing that I and others have suggested to you here and elsewhere is a change in the way you approach people, not in the way you run your lab. But I’m aware that leading a horse to water and getting the horse to drink it are two different things.

It is, but as you know, I’m not making it.

Your attempt to isolate evolutionary theory from evolutionary biology is puerile, Eddie, as is your use of “technical” as a term of contempt. Despite your pathological avoidance of the interface between theory and praxis, your ID heroes are far more bold.

If you really believe that you understand evolutionary theory better than Collins does, prove it with a critique of this paper:

Your name-checking style suggests that you don’t have a clue.

Because you have repeatedly and falsely claimed that departing from it is not allowed, as though there is some secret regulatory cabal.

My work also touches on multiple evolutionary topics brought up here on which DI Fellows both regard as very important and on which they have been spectacularly wrong.

In one of them, according to @Art , your hero Meyer (whom you hold up as having a superior understanding of evolutionary theory) thought that “ID theory” predicts that these mutations shouldn’t even exist:

" Interestingly enough, the research described by John and his coworkers contradicts an assertion Meyer made in our exchange at Biola back in 2010 - namely, that it is not possible to mutationally alter cytoskeleton components without destroying function."

…yet most people carrying them survive and the proteins are functional.

While Art noted this in the context of our protein design work, these are natural mutations and disprove Meyer’s hypothesis far more thoroughly. Just to show how out-of-date Meyer is, the first such mutation was discovered 20 years before he made that claim!

So if Meyer is the evolutionary whiz you claim he is, why did he let slip an empirical prediction that had been falsified naturally, in humans, 20 years earlier? And why do you clearly vehemently disagree with the importance Meyer places on the cytoskeleton?

How would my work change if something other than MN was encouraged?

If Meyer repeatedly cites the cytoskeleton and its structure and function as relevant to inferring design, why do you disagree with him?

That’s like being a little bit pregnant.

I am skeptical of claims for beings that exist outside of nature, but I don’t rule it out. Where does that put me?


All moms-to-be are not of the same race.

Depends on the reason for your being skeptical. Why are you skeptical of “beings” outside nature.

1 Like

I am skeptical of the existence of deities because of the lack of compelling evidence.

1 Like

Define compelling evidence… is it scientific evidence?

Evidence is more compelling if it is independent and verifiable.

Sagan wrote a good essay on the subject called “The Dragon in My Garage”. It is worth a read:


Do you know of any way to get independent/verifiable evidence other than through MN?
Would historical accounts like those for the ressurection count?

Not off the top of my head, but if you have some independent and verifiable evidence that isn’t from MN I would like to see it.

I would need independent and verifiable evidence that supports those accounts. The claim is never the evidence.