Does methodological naturalism become philosophical naturalism in public discourse?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

I can’t speak for the others, but I’ve neither said nor implied any such thing.

False:

How would you define "science"?

Again we must come back to the distinction between what some people in “the ID movement” may do, and what ID as a theory holds. Many people in the ID movement (though not too many of the leading lights) are concordists, as you point out, and many of them overrate the importance of science. This is true of most creationists as well, and there is some overlap between ID and creationist folks. All of this is true. Nonetheless, ID as such has no position on concordism, the Bible, Christianity, etc. It does, however, have a position on the nature of science, and its position is opposed to that of many in the atheist and TE/EC scientific communities. It holds that the purpose of natural science is to get at the truth about nature, following the evidence wherever it leads, unhampered by arbitrary rules such as “methodological naturalism.” Thus, if reason and evidence seem to point to design as the explanation for the origin of something, most atheist and TE/EC people reflexively respo…

@Eddie

Scientists, when speaking as scientists , were not allowed to speak about “design” in physical, chemical, or biological systems or entities.

@Eddie

I was talking about laying down epistemological rules regarding design inferences, declaring them to be in principle outside of the realm of science.

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?

@Eddie

I have criticized not your “life’s work” in your particular scientific field, but (a) your leisure time, blog-site-debating, speculative extrapolations outside of your field, when you wander into the scientific specialty of evolutionary mechanisms

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.

@Eddie

I have never seen you grant even the smallest point to any ID proponent in any discussion

Then you haven’t been paying attention.

@Eddie

Nobody takes seriously an intellectual conversation partner who is so mechanically nay-saying as you are.

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?