Re: Answer to Eugenie Scott's views

Phillip E. Johnson (
Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:40:09 -0800


At 09:56 PM 3/18/98 -0600, Keith B Miller wrote:

>Methodological naturalism is a _method_, it cannot proscribe anything!

To which I counterpose this statement (from *Reason in the Balance*, p. 211):

"If employing methodological naturalism is the only way to reach true
conclusions about the history of the universe, and if the attempt to
provide a naturalistic history of the universe has gone from success to
success, and if even theists concede that trying to do science on theistic
premises always leads nowhere or into error (the embarrassing "God of the
gaps"), then the likely explanation for this state of affairs is that
naturalism is true and theism is false."

Note that this statement says "likely explanation." It does not claim the
status of absolute truth, and does not deny that sufficently motivated
theists can find a refuge. They can retreat into an unfalsifiable
position, by (for example) saying that God created the whole system, and
constantly upholds it with his mighty (but scientifically undetectable) hand.

Who disagrees?

Best wishes,

Phil Johnson