From: John W Burgeson <firstname.lastname@example.org>> Allen wrote, about "mythological
naturalism": "Not a new term. It is
> simply stating that Naturalism is mythology. It's (sic) assumptions have
> no factual basis. The unprovable assumptions are:
> 1. matter/energy/motion originated (and continually operates) according
> natural laws by which they interact that is inherent within them.
> 2. Nature is all there is and has ever been or ever will be."
> New term to me, Allen.
Creationism also holds at least one unprovable assumption: "nature and all
its laws originated as invented, designed and created "Ex Nihilo" by God"
accepted by faith in the truthfulness of a person found through
> It is apparent that you see science working with the philosophical
> naturalism assumption. That SOME scientists do so I will cheerfully
> agree. That even a significant minority do so I doubt. I know that I did
> not, even when I was an atheist.
To me (and I believe most Creationary Catastrophists), Science is the
scientific method, not a separate philosophy of life as are Creationism or
Naturalism. It is entirely possible to find science being properly done
within the philosophical naturalism assumption or within the philosophical
Creationism assumption. The difference being that the scientifically
acquired data is interpreted differently within the contrasting
I will deal more with the attempted philosophical accommodations between
Creationism and Naturalism in another posting.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 09 2002 - 10:58:30 EST