From: David Opderbeck <>
Date: Wed May 16 2007 - 18:05:11 EDT

I would not sign it, even aside from these objections, because of the
context in which it was brought. No document should be interpreted apart
from its context. The context of this document was a sustained attack on a
Christian by an atheist, not merely a neutral, scholarly statement about
ID. The document must be read in the context of that attack.

On 5/16/07, <> wrote:
> I generally agree with Rich and I would not sign it. It says,
> "Methodological naturalism [is] the view that natural phenomena can be
> explained without reference to supernatural beings or events."
> By saying this is a "view", and by positively affirming that in this view
> everything observable in nature "CAN be explained," this is defining a
> belief-system rather than a method. It fails to allow that a scientists can
> participate in methodological naturalism without subscribing to the view
> that it will always be successful in every extreme.
> In other words, this definition confuses methodological naturalism with
> philosophical naturalism. The philosophical worldview represented in this
> statement is not really needed to serve as a foundation for science for any
> individual scientist or for the endeavor as a whole.
> Phil
> ------------------------------
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at ** <>.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 16 18:05:22 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 16 2007 - 18:05:22 EDT