From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Wed May 30 2007 - 20:49:45 EDT

On 5/30/07, Dave Wallace <> wrote:
> Rich Blinne wrote:
> > By way of counter-example here's another anti-ID statement that doesn't
> > have the problematic re-definition of methodological naturalism:
> >
> > The RASC Ottawa Centre supports high standards of scientific
> Rich
> I understand that other statements are more carefully worded and that
> the Iowa statement should have been more careful. However, it seems to
> me that one could easily take the view that "natural phenomena" covers
> all events in space-time that are not caused by something outside the
> continuum eg super natural. In such a view the resurrection while
> occurring in space-time is not a "natural phenomena". You could well be
> right in your conclusion of duplicity, but I'd like to see some other
> evidence that philosophical naturalism was what was meant before coming
> to that conclusion.
> Dave W

I chose the word problematic carefully. I don't believe the Iowa statement
was duplicitous, just sloppy. That's particularly the case for the
non-authorial signatories of the statement. The Ottawa statement starts with
the core ideas of science: e.g., rational hypotheses and repeatability.
Methodological naturalism is a consequence of such concepts. In contrast, by
making naturalism the warp and woof of science was the error of the Iowa
statement. Mix in scientism where only science is meaningful and you have
demarcated all religion out of the scientific enterprise.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 30 20:50:05 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 30 2007 - 20:50:05 EDT