Why Some TE/EC Scientists Silent About Divine Action?

Well, different people use the term “methodological naturalism” differently in these discussions, which I why I try to avoid it.

My speakers in Option 2 and Option 3 were entertaining the possibility that natural causes might be inadequate to explain some things about biological origins. And most advocates of “methodological naturalism” in these discussions strongly dislike to hear scientists, even Christian scientists, seriously entertaining that possibility. Their dislike of it is shown by frequent use of the “God of the gaps” rebuke whenever such suggestions are aired. (The same parties don’t object to the employment of “chance of the gaps” speculations to fill in blanks in our understanding of origins, but that is a side point here.)

If you aren’t offended by a Christian scientist who publicly endorses Option 2 or 3, then you may hold to a less “weaponized” understanding of the term “methodological naturalism” than some others do.

However, you still have not answered the two further questions (numbered) I asked you in my last post above. I don’t know whether this means you missed them, or that you have a disinclination to answer them, but I consider them important points to clarify, so if you would try to address them directly, I would appreciate your response.

Maybe we’re asking the wrong questions, and thus skewing our own results?
https://colossianforum.org/2014/07/08/6141/

Thanks for this reference, Guy. Will check it out.

Hi Eddie -

I think you make a plausible case for the prudence of airing a variety of opinions on how the first cell came to be. My only concern is that those who air such opinions would be prudent to acknowledge that scientific research, as it has in the past for other kinds of origins, could in the future be able to present a narrative that has strong evidential support.

This is about as far as I can go at this point in time.

Enjoy the rest of your week!

Yours,
Chris