Yes, but the history is more complicated than that. For one thing, those very Christians who instituted the practice never claimed that origins (as opposed to how the universe currently works) would or should be explained by natural science. It was 150-200 years later that natural science expanded its claims and tried to deal with origins as well as operations. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, etc. just took it for granted that the solar system was put in place by God, and that science’s job regarding the solar system was to study the mathematics of its workings, not to provide a non-teleological account of how it came to be. Second, while there was a general tendency to consider only efficient-cause explanations, explanations in terms of final cause weren’t absolutely ruled out, as some writings of Newton and Boyle show. Descartes and Bacon were hard-line on this, but not everyone was. The historical reality involved a mixture of notions and positions.
Perhaps.
I rather like Wittgenstein’s “meaning is use.” And in this case, I take that to suggest that whether I then saw God as part of nature might well depend on how my neighbors and friends take it. What we mean by “nature” is something that we share with the community.
Well, for the early Christian community, “nature” (though they would more likely have called it “the created world” or “creation”) was distinct from God; God created nature, and transcended it. He could of course influence it, but he was not part of it. This would be true also for the Medieval Christian community, and for most Christian communities up until fairly recent times. They wouldn’t have thought that God was part of nature because Jesus turned water into wine, or because Jesus healed lepers, etc. But we might as well wait on this until aquaticus answers; maybe that will clear up what he meant.
It’s not that naturalism is running the show. Nature is the show. Science is a method of understanding nature. Methodological naturalism is a paradigm under which science does what it can do in a world which believes in the supernatural to varying degrees.
If by “process” you strictly mean the process of scientific discovery, then yes, I agree with you that methodological naturalism is running the show. (Methodological naturalism, not just naturalism.)
Still, Terrell, I really am uncomfortable with that term, because connotations mean a lot. Someone might read this (or your magazine article) and then report to their church, “Science is ruled by materialism! This is why it is dangerous and we should distrust it in favor of the Word of God!” A lot of these discussions about science and faith are not rational, scholarly discussions in an academic setting - there are a lot of emotions and spiritual matters at stake. I truly wish that Christians would be comfortable engaging mainstream science as it is, instead of putting an asterisk next to everything saying, “this was discovered with materialism running the show”!
And for me, a Christian scientist, even if my scientific reasoning is done without specific reference to God, I do sincerely believe that it is ultimately God who causes and sustains scientific laws and uses them for His purpose, even at this very moment. Similar to what Josh said, MN is simply a reflection of the gradual realization that empirical investigation alone is insufficient to study God. It has to be supplanted by philosophical reasoning and Scripture to make sense.
You don’t have to affirm your Christian faith for me, @dga471. I’ve already said I believe you and that I’m not questioning your status as a member of the body of Christ. I’m questioning the epistemology of TE/EC.
“Dangerous” is a very strong word. Is the danger you’re referring to a fear that Christians might adopt a skeptical attitude toward science? Or statements made in the name of science? Or is it something else? Can you help me understand what exactly is the danger you’re referring to?
MN is running the show in science. I would argue that the ID community is allowing “materialistic philosophy” to run the show by insisting that ID be considered science. If Wells and others simply backed off, stated clearly that ID isn’t science, and then argued for the value of their own ID philosophy then much of the friction would disappear.
Is ‘epistemology’ the right word? It’s seems more about doctrinal or religious compatibility.
This is true. It’s also behind YEC science, in attempts to explain radioactive dating and problems with a global flood.
The same can be said for science exiting the ideology business. It takes two to tango.
I think there is an epistemology within the TE/EC view. I would argue it is part of the much larger epistemology that is found in christian theology. An epistemology is the method of how knowledge is derived, so TE/EC would incorporate truth revealed in scripture and personal revelation as part of one’s religious beliefs. Most TE/EC’s that I have interacted with understand the limits of what can be determined with science, and don’t expect the actions of God to be incorporated into science.
I think epistemology is the right word. Consider the following definitions of science: (1) empirical science is the enterprise of seeking truth by formulating hypotheses and testing them against evidence; (2) technological science comprises the advances that have enriched modern life; and (3) establishment science consists of professionals conducting research. These can all be legitimate uses of the word.
In addition, some people have come to define science as (4) the enterprise of providing natural explanations for everything . This would more accurately be called methodological naturalism . And while it is true that the methods of empirical science limit the causal explanations it can confirm or disconfirm to the material realm, to go further and assume that only material causes exist is to assume an unstated claim about metaphysical reality .
If the design inference is only allowable as long as the designer is itself explainable within naturalism, then the unstated assumption is that only natural causes exist. The philosophy of naturalism is setting the boundaries of what is or is not knowable.
I would argue that within MN our causal explanations are limited by the empirical evidence we have. In principle, no explanation is excluded a priori within MN. Instead, MN has requirements that an explanation has to meet before it can be accepted within that epistemology.
As stated before, the design inference is not excluded from MN. Instead, a design inference needs a testable hypothesis and empirical evidence before it can be accepted within MN.
Good points about ‘epistemology’.
I think MN and science permits a designer as an explanation so far as the designer can be studied by its potential influence on materials. The designer needn’t be explainable per se, but it would need to leave some discernible pattern.There are any number of phenomena studied by science despite the root mechanisms being unknown. Now that doesn’t mean that a designer necessarily must leave a discernible pattern or that an absence of such patterns means a designer doesn’t exist, only that if one if going to infer a designer via science, it must display some regularity or pattern. For example, Walter ReMine formulated a positive hypothesis about how a designer might leave a clear pattern of its work in the history of life.
So it’s not that a designer is ruled out of bounds in science by definition or even in practice. It’s more a matter of whether such an influence is discernible. What science won’t be able to say is whether a particular designer is God.
This is the ID argument.
I disagree with this reasoning because of its premise, which is clearly false. Science does not seek to explain everything, merely what can be approximately explained by natural causes.
As long as we keep in mind that it is not a total account (as you are not doing) then we shouldn’t be troubled by MN, and your argument falls apart.
Disagreement noted, and I’m content to leave it at that.
I think that all the leading ID proponents would agree with this formulation. However, many vocal atheists and TE/EC leaders appear to rule it out, suggesting that design as such is outside of the sphere of scientific investigation, since science deals with facts about the universe, whereas “design” belongs to the realm of “purpose, values, and meaning” (a phrase which for a while was tossed around on BioLogos like a mantra).
Excellent! So we can dispense with the “Who designed the designer?” evasion.
Which Newton thought the designer had done. (General Scholium.)
Again, ID folks would agree.
I hesitate to answer for @dga471, but that won’t stop me from doing it 
When Daniel used the term “dangerous”, it was in a hypothetical quote for a Christian that might dismiss scientific evidence that they possibly read is “ruled by materialism”. It could make sense why a Christian without a significant scientific background would read that and view scientific findings as dangerous - after all, it is ruled by materialism, and we Christians assume that our ruling Creator is beyond the material.
Having put Daniel’s use of “dangerous” in context, I do think that those Christians without a significant science background that read “materialism rules science” and therefore assume it is not to be trusted is indeed QUITE dangerous. The anti-vax movement is a prime example of this, but climate change denialism could be a significant problem in the future (if not already), and I’m sure there are other examples.
I certainly understand the point to the phrase “materialism rules science”, but as Daniel said, the connotation can be rather problematic.
P. S. If you want to direct a reply to a particular user, probably the easiest way to do it is to simply highlight a portion of their text you would like to include in your response and click on the “Quote” button that will appear.
“Anthropogenic global warming skepticism” would be a less loaded, less biased term. Also more accurate, since most of those who are skeptical of AGW claims do not deny the existence of climate change, but dispute only certain claims about its causes.
However, to keep this on the point of the present discussion, note that disputes over AGW have nothing to do with materialism vs. Christian religious belief. Both AGW promoters and AGW skeptics seek to explain climatic change in terms of natural causes only. Doubts about the validity of the MN/PN distinction (methodological naturalism/philosophical naturalism) don’t come into it.