[VadeRetro]

Of course they will deny it, and claim that their reasons preceded their faith, but their fierce defense of naturalism and ad-hominem attacks on people of faith belies their protestations.

EsotericLucidity, banned for being a troll shortly before Subliminal_Kid was, once pointed out that there's Naturalism, the Method, and Naturalism, the Philosophy. The first simply uses physical techniques to investigate the real world; it's the only effective way. The other is a doctrine which says that natural physical causes are all that exist and all that are needed to explain the world. Many scientists reject the second even as they employ the first. Luddites who despise science for contradicting their creation myth attack the first for being the second.

[Ahban]

Luddites who despise science for contradicting their creation myth attack the first for being the second.

And Naturalists who despise Creationists for contradicting their creation myths often masquarade as merely practicing a methodolgy of naturalism while actually advancing the unprovable philosophy of natualism.

Agreed?

[lasereye]

there's Naturalism, the Method, and Naturalism, the Philosophy. The first simply uses physical techniques to investigate the real world; it's the only effective way. The other is a doctrine which says that natural physical causes are all that exist and all that are needed to explain the world. Many scientists reject the second even as they employ the first. Luddites who despise science for contradicting their creation myth attack the first for being the second.

No, evolution clearly falls into the second category. Various evolutionists have asserted that creationism is a priori unacceptable because it means there's a supreme being. In other words it must automatically be rejected, regardless of scientific problems with evolution and regardless of any scientifically based creationist arguments. Scientific creationism uses naturalism the Method just as much as evolution does.