So this is an interesting point, that goes to a core of the debate. As we enter here, I want to assert the I do affirm methodological naturalism. In science, as it is practiced today, we do not include God in hypothesis in science. For this reason, science is silent on theological claims. This rule, it seems, has been an indispensable part of the modern practice of science, even though it is hotly contested by creationist groups and Intelligent Design.
However, I also say that it is “not correctly named.” This is a development that I owe to both @paulnelson and a long conversation with Andrew Torrance last year, and also Clinton Ohlers. This the same Andrew Torrance that will be responding to me at Dabar.
The key point is that the concept “methodological naturalism” arises very early on in science, at least as early as Bacon’s Novum Organum. When it first arises, it is not a product of naturalism or atheism. Rather, it is an application (which might be disputed) of a particular understanding of the Creator / creation distinction. The point was is that this rule is best grounded in that theological concept, not a naturalism.
So why doesn’t naturalism work? There is a lot of work out there (often proffered by ID) that makes some legitimate points. How do we define “natural” and “supernatural”? Why do we exclude something that doesn’t exist? How do we even define what is allowed and not, without reference to a well defined concept of God? These questions become very difficult to define, and lead to contradictions and inconsistencies.
This all goes away if we understand it as saying that, for Christian theological reasons, we choose to exclude the Christian God from scientific explanations. Now it all makes much more sense why rules work the way they do. And it also helps, for example, ID people to understand the legitimate motivations for such an exclusion. Rather than challenging that rule, we could be instead be recovering the theological motivations put forward by, for example, Bacon and Boyle and others to justify it.
So I do affirm methodological naturalism. However, it is better grounded in theology than naturalism, and the name “naturalism” makes it a needlessly conflicted term among people that dislike naturalism. This does not mean that one has to agree with Christian theology to practice methodological naturalism. Right now, it is just the rule of science, and most people who abide by it are certainly not Christians.
Any how, so that is why I think it is not correctly called that. Haven’t found a good and neutral term to replace it though. So ti seems we are stuck with the name for now.