Spirited Irish, was this specifically what you were referring to or some other __fill_in_the_blanks__? Just wondering...
wwfd said: “This is a bold case of equivocation. In your first sentence you used the term ‘modern science.’ In this next sentence you use the term ‘scientific naturalism’. You seem to be using them as synonyms when they clearly are not. I am not certain what ‘scientific naturalism’ is. I imagine it is some sort of philosophy. Maybe a materialistic philosophy that posits that the only thing that exists is matter. “
Is that short enough for you drive-by "philosophers" to understand?
Modern science arose when Christian theism dedivinized nature. In speaking of modern science I was referring to what it has been devolving into since the time of Hume, the mechanists, materialists, etc.
Science was fated to fall back into magic as soon as men removed the transcendent Creator from the picture, for either He is divine or nature is divine.
The ‘new’ science as represented by Depak Chopra, quantum physics, green environmentalism, transhumanism, spiritual humanism, James Lovelock, and powerful UN insiders such as Robert Muller is definitely spiritual. Materialist Darwinism is out and Telhard de Chardin’s Omega Point in. After millions of years, God is “emerging” out of matter resulting in the spiritualization of the temporal.
Ultimately, it matters not what Darwinists believe or want. Their days are numbered. Nature is being redivinized and evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins will either get on board or go down in flames.