- May 19, 2006
- 2,219
- 189
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Here is a section from Wikipedia:
Many modern philosophers of science[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and hence does not accept supernatural explanations for such events. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.
My question, especially for my TE friends, is if you would agree that the scientific method specifically excludes supernatural explanations. If so, this may explain some basic impasses around here. If "science" precludes the actions of a living God in history, then of course it will not accept any use of God in explanations for the geologic column or flood, etc.
If it is a prerequisite for a "scientific" answer to exclude the actions of God, then by definition creationism will never be "scientific". It is crucial to understand that that does not neccessarily make it false!
I have seen and experienced many "supernatural" events which cannot be explained without invoking the Lord -- that does not make them false.
-lee-
Many modern philosophers of science[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and hence does not accept supernatural explanations for such events. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.
My question, especially for my TE friends, is if you would agree that the scientific method specifically excludes supernatural explanations. If so, this may explain some basic impasses around here. If "science" precludes the actions of a living God in history, then of course it will not accept any use of God in explanations for the geologic column or flood, etc.
If it is a prerequisite for a "scientific" answer to exclude the actions of God, then by definition creationism will never be "scientific". It is crucial to understand that that does not neccessarily make it false!
I have seen and experienced many "supernatural" events which cannot be explained without invoking the Lord -- that does not make them false.
-lee-