withallyourmind.net

As I have made the case for Intelligent Design, I have often been told that science must necessarily hold to methodological naturalism (Science entails that observable effects in nature are explainable only by natural causes with irrelevance to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of the supernatural). If one adheres to MN, then one can be a good scientist, regardless of what one beliefs about the supernatural. We are often told that MN does not entail philosophical naturalism (the metaphysical claim that only natural things exist; there exists no supernatural entities). It seems however, that this is not actually the case.

According to this NY Times article, Marcus Ross, has recently earned a PhD in geosciences from the University of Rhode Island. Some academicians are arguing that his religious beliefs should keep him from receiving this degree. Wow! I’ve always been told by those who oppose ID as a movement that one may believe whatever he wishes in private as long as he plays science by the rules of the game - methodological naturalism.

Macht, at Telic Thoughts, comments:

Marcus Ross seems to be taking MN very seriously. He also seems be taking these people at their word - that there is no link between MN and PN. Ross decided that he wanted to be a scientist and the way to do that was to accept the “ground rule” of MN. But the mild kerfluffle that Krauze mentioned the other day is interesting, since it seems to fly in the face of this standard meme from ID critics. Ross is being dishonest, we are told, for playing the game, for accepting the rules that science now seems to be operating by and for accepting the received wisdom that MN doesn’t entail PN. Apparently, if you accept MN as a “ground rule” for science, but don’t accept the results of that science as the truth, you are a liar.

This makes me wonder if all this talk about how MN doesn’t entail PN is something they really believe. Somebody who truly believe that the former didn’t entail the latter and that MN is a rule that scientists use because it works and not necessarily because it leads to the truth wouldn’t accuse Ross of lying. Lying is a serious charge afterall. Note, though, that this has very little to do with what Ross believes about MN or the age of the earth or even if he was lying. This is about the consistency some of his critics in holding a instrumentalist position about science but then getting upset when a YEC’er does the same thing.

An instrumentalist position regarding science is one that asserts that science does not tell us what is acutally true about the world, rather it tells us what works in describing the world. On this view, it doesn’t matter if science describes the way the world really is as long as it makes accurate predictions and works in our everyday lives. Opposed to this position is the realist position concerning science - that science describes the world as it really is. It gives us true knowledge about the world.

It seems like the MN’s would like to have their cake and eat it to. Are they saying that there really is no such thing as the existence of anything supernatural, or are we just assuming this to make science work?