Replies

DMN involves the claim that the very definition or inherent logic of science demands that it accord with the rule of making use only of naturalistic explanations (that is, explanations in terms of events and processes located within space and time).

Well, garbage-in, garbage-out. The premise is itself based on a premise: That we already know all there is to know about matter, causation, space, and time. Thus we know that the natural world of cause and effect is strictly confined to a band of three dimensions of space, which are evolving in time. Time is linear, moving from past to future. Matter just "does its thing," in accordance with the physical laws -- and we sure do know all of those by now, now don't we?

I strongly agree with you, Alamo-Girl, that this is not the understanding that science had of itself before about a 100 years ago. And so I disagree with spunkets, who wrote that methodological naturalism has "always been the way of science."

I really liked your excerpt from Koonz, and especially admired this remark:

"We need to consider the possibility that as theists we can discover order and regularity, even natural laws of universal design, that our unbelieving colleagues do not see because they are not looking for them. We need to realize that theism is not only not a hindrance to good science, it may be a necessary condition for certain discoveries being possible at all."

You cannot find anything you're not looking for. But What if? everything in the Universe does not reduce to material causes? If this were so, then because all science is looking for is material explanations, science would routinely fail to make accurate descriptions of the Universe. Koonz points to a failure of imagination in his critique of DMN; and I think he's right.

spunkets wrote: "The nonphysical, does not support the physical. It's always the other way around."

Is it? On what evidence does spunkett's confident claim rest?

Thank you so much, Alamo-Girl, for the great essay/post!

" What if? everything in the Universe does not reduce to material causes? If this were so, then because all science is looking for is material explanations, science would routinely fail to make accurate descriptions of the Universe. Koonz points to a failure of imagination in his critique of DMN; and I think he's right.

I may never get "DMN". What I do know is that, if it's there, not only will I see it, but science also.

All these patterns in nature that folks qualify as design, are just patterns. There's no proof of design, but you can show these patterns arise out of the underlying physics.

Re:"The nonphysical, does not support the physical. It's always the other way around."

Is it? On what evidence does spunkett's confident claim rest?

It's self evident. If you have a non physical object, and nothing else, what do you have? If you have more of the same, how do they relate? You need a physical reality to support your the non physical objects. All of science has never contradicted that. How can it?