This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Unbelievable? PZ Myers and Denis Alexander on Faith and Science

Lemniscate's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by Lemniscate

Returning to methodological naturalism, if indeed natural science is essentially restricted in this way, if such a restriction is part of the very essence of science, then what we need here, of course, is not natural science, but a broader inquiry that can include all that we know, including the truths that God has created life on earth and could have done it in many different ways. "Unnatural science," "Creation Science," "Theistic Science"—call it what you will: what we need when we want to know how to think about the origin and development of contemporary life is what is most plausible from a Christian point of view. What we need is a scientific account of life that isn't restricted by methodological naturalism.
Alvin Plantinga


Pseudo-profundity translation:

If the evidence contradicts my religion, let's make up an answer and call it 'scientific'.


These 'sophisticated theologians' never feel the need to complain about the methodological naturalism that produced the germ theory of disease and antibiotics to which they probably owe their continuing existence. Most theologians and theistic scientists I've read do little more than special pleading writ large.

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:41:00 UTC | #375381