Challenging One Conclusion of the Scientific Method.
By
HG
on February 8, 2007 at 03:32 pm
One argument against a creator and intelligent design rests upon the science restricted by the scientific method—methodological naturalism. Wikipedia states it well:
The logic appears to be as follows:
Major Premise:.
Minor Premise:
Conclusion:
Challenge: Identify the fallacy.
(Updates will be added and edited as necessary)
... the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes, and with irrelevance to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of supernatural elements, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside of science
methodological naturalism is “the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it…
...but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is.
The logic appears to be as follows:
Major Premise:.
.observable effects in nature are best explainable only by similarly natural causes,and with irrelevance to the assumption of the existence or non-existence of supernatural elements, and so considers supernatural explanations for such events to be outside of science
Minor Premise:
Natural causes sufficiently explaintheall natural effects in the universe.
Conclusion:
There are no supernatural causes necessary to explainnatural[observable] effects [in nature]. (i.e. there is no creator or intelligent design).
Challenge: Identify the fallacy.
(Updates will be added and edited as necessary)
