Re: "Icons of Evolution"

From: William T. Yates (
Date: Tue Jun 05 2001 - 15:43:37 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: So. Baptist Spin on BOE Vote"


    Would you care to elaborate on your comment, 'Moreover, one can present
    good _theological_ arguments to validate such "methodological
    naturalism."' I beleive these arguments may represent a method for
    getting some believers to be more comfortable with science and its findings.


    --Bill Yates

    george murphy wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > Hi George, thank you for your comments!
    > >
    > > george murphy wrote:
    > > >
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > > (Big Snip!)
    > > In fact, the principal untestable hypothesis assumed is philosophical naturalism. The power of the evidences for evolution depends very much on the previous assumption of theism or atheism.
    > This is true only in the sense that scientists assume that God is not an element of scientific explanation - i.e., what has been called in a rather loose way "methodological naturalism." Most scientists who are Christians operate in this way whether they have thought out their assumptions carefully or not. (No competent scientist, when confronted with a puzzling result of an experiemnt, will be content to explain it by saying "God did it.") Moreover, one can present good _theological_ arguments to validate such "methodological naturalism."
     It is quite another matter - and I think simply untrue - to say that
    this is equivalent to an assumption of "atheism" in the ordinary sense
    of the word.
    > Shalom,
    > George

    --Bill Yates
    --Moderator, Writer's Club Christian Writer's Workshop
    --Editor,'s Believer's Weekly
    --Theron Services: Web Design, Editing, Writing

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 15:43:19 EDT