[asa] Re: Is Philosophical Naturalism replacing Methodological Naturalism

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Sat May 26 2007 - 21:20:09 EDT

On May 26, 2007, at 6:31 PM, PvM wrote:

> http://www.midiowanews.com/site/news.cfm?
> newsid=15149725&BRD=2700&PAG=461&dept_id=554188&rfi=8
> How does the claim by ID proponents that their work is science and not
> religion play into the analysis? After all, how can one claim
> religious hostility when this is not about religion?

Because the former claim is wrong and the latter claim is right. Just
like you I don't buy upper-case ID is science. Nevertheless, the
problem with this particular statement is that it is a strawman
argument denying what ID does not claim and affirming scientism
rather than science. Let's just call this the Queen Gertrude
statement because it protesteth too much. I see over and over the net
atheists saying that ID and Gonzalez is "anti science" this and "anti
science" that when what they are really doing is merely advancing a
poorly supported hypothesis. Of course, nobody else does that! :-)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 26 21:21:31 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 26 2007 - 21:21:31 EDT