Who coined the term “methodological naturalism”?

"Methological Naturalism (Neo-Monism in a cheap hairy gorilla suit)" - C. DuCrâne "That's a typo" - Homer Jay Simspon Maybe the Brights get their inspiration from crystals. Collin DuCrâne

Colin DuCrane: "Methological Naturalism (Neo-Monism in a cheap hairy gorilla suit)." An excellent quoteable!! Mike 1962: "ID should not be emeshed in the quagmire of metaphysics. What is at issue is design and it’s detection. That is squarely in the realm of scientific inquiry. Questions about any supernatural can never be." From a scientific perspective, design and it's detection is squarely in the realm of scientific inquiry. Questions about any supernatural can never be. However, science is not both the beginning and the end. Science also has discovered the big bang and the necessary precision of the primary forces of the universe. This is the end of science, and the beginning of metaphysics. Science, in ID biology, must end with the detection of design. Metaphysics, however, will move on from that point, and will establish certain characteristics that must be true of the designer(s). Consider, for instance, what we have already. According to current cosmology, there was only one big bang. Therefore if the big bang was designed, it was designed by either a single designer or a group of designers working together as one. By the same token, all of life is based on the same DNA structure. If it was created by multiple designers then those designers all worked from the same playbook. Further, what we have discovered about nature is that it is emminantly logical. It is bound to rules of cause and effect. If designer(s) did it, this is not necessarily so. Further, the designer(s) did not encrypt his/her/their work. It would seem clear that the designer(s) at least do not mind having their work discovered and understood. My position on the matter: Let science do what science does, and no more. But don't prohibit good metaphysics from doing what metaphysics does. bFast

Have you all seen this gem by Daniel Dennett? http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06_index.html The late Steve Gould was really right when he called Richard and me Darwinian fundamentalists. And I want to say what a Darwinian fundamentalist is. A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. It is the unexceptioned view that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the original driving engines, but recent effects that marks, I think, the true Darwinian fundamentalist. idnet.com.au

"That's no moon ... It's a space station." - Obi Wan Kenobi Godless Dawkins Sphere Rawk&Roll Studios (c) 2006 In the world where I was born Lived a man who lived in fear And he told us about life In the realm of Dawkins Spheres So we flew into the sun, Till we found our lake of fear, And we burned eternally, In our godless Dawkins Sphere We all live in a godless Dawkins Sphere, Godless Dawkins Sphere, godless Dawkins Sphere ... And our friends became so Bright, As the world became so dark, And the band begins to play. (Trumpets play) We all live in a godless Dawkins Sphere, Godless Dawkins Sphere, godless Dawkins Sphere ... As we live the life so Bright, RM+NS is all we need, all we need Lake of fire, lake of fire, and life of fear, life of fear In our godless ,in our godless, Dawkins Sphere, Dawkins Sphere, blaha Collin DuCrâne

Has it occured to any of us that it takes only one deletion and one substitution mutation event to go from "brights" to "bigots"? idnet.com.au

According to csicop, http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights/ The Brights are followers of the Brights Movement whose doctrine is based squarely on Methological Naturalism (Neo-Monism in a cheap hairy gorilla suit). Our heros Dawkins and Rollins consider themsleves "bright". At the risk of invoking Godwin, that's what they said about Hitler. His followers thought the gleam in his eye was brilliance. It turned out to be insanity. 2Cr 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. I am still holding out for Rollin's salvation. The Apostle Henry? Converted on the Damascas road while ID-bashing? Collin DuCrâne

Howdy, Methological Naturalism should not be confused with Metaphysical naturalism ,the former has a tentative grip on making inferences using data,the later is an example of an Idea. WormHerder

ID should not be emeshed in the quagmire of metaphysics. What is at issue is design and it's detection. That is squarely in the realm of scientific inquiry. Questions about any supernatural can never be. mike1962

Dr. Dembski, are you saying that "Methodological Naturalism" was not a named philosophy of science prior to 1983, sometime after I graduated highschool? Did the same view go under a different name? If so, what was that name? As far as the politics of ID goes, this may be a big deal! bFast

Have heard Phillip Johnson use the term "epistemological naturalism" which hits the nail on the head: me thinks it's for the agenda which would push Design out of public knowledge but let us hold to it subjectively like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Rude