METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM, REVISIONIST HISTORY, AND MORPHING DEFINITIONS
Whenever I tune in to any discussion on the subject of “methodological naturalism,” I often marvel at the extent to which Darwinists will rewrite history and manipulate the language in their futile attempt to defend this so-called “requirement” for science. In order to set the stage, we must first try to understand what methodological naturalism could possibly mean.
First, we have what one might call the “soft” definition, characterized as a preference for identifying for natural causes, a position which makes no final judgment about a universal line of demarcation between science and non-science. Second, we have the “hard” definition as used by all the institutional Darwinists. In the second context, methodological naturalism is an institutional “rule” by which one group of researchers imposes on another group of researchers an arbitrary, intrusive, and non-negotiable standard which states that scientists must study nature as if nature is all there is.