Re: asa-digest V1 #1309

John W. Burgeson (
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:46:56 -0600

George wrote:

"Perhaps we've gotten over-abbreviated. I was referring to
naturalism. But if ID actually includes the possibility of a "natural"
then it's no argument againt metaphysical naturalism either. That would
have to be attacked on other grounds."

Aha! I should have known MN = "Methodological Naturalism," not
Metaphysical Naturalism" when you used it. You are right -- we do tend
to over-abbreviate!
< G >

Every time I pick on you it seems to turn on a word definition and we are
in accord! I, as you, have objected to Johnson (and indirectly to
for their convolutions (as I see them) of conflation of the two terms. In
their defense, they see a difference between them -- but only a
theoretical difference, not one observed in practice. As I read Dawkins
and Sagan, I think they are correct for those two gentlemen; not for

> George also wrote:
> ------------
> I think the claim that ID amounts to anything more than a
> scientifically clothed attempt to say "God did it" is an empty
> ----------------------
I ased:

" But is this your view of the people espousing it -- or the concept

George replied:

It's my view of ID as it is actually being used - e.g., by those
who see
Johnson as a champion of evangelical Christianity. As I indicated, there
a formal possibility of other usages.

Understand. Again, no argument here.


Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: