Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[rjh4 is back]

Long time no see Rjh4! Where have you been hiding?

It has been a while. I have been following some of these threads a bit, I just don't post as often as I used to.

As for my argument:

1. Methodical naturalism is the foundation of science.
2. Science has discovered more truth claims and applications there of than any other methodology, Therefore:
3. Methodological naturalism is the most effective methodology for determining truth and obtaining application thereof.

Keep in mind: Methodological naturalism is not metaphysical naturalism nor is it the only method that can arrive at truth claims. Reliablism, for instance, can arrive at true claim, so can Introspection (A priori truths) and others. There were also true claims being made prior to the advent of science. My argument is that it is the most effective methodology (by a *** huge margin) and it's even when time is taken out of account.

While one might be able to argue the truthfulness of premise 2 (depending on how one counts "truth claims"), I won't as I think the argument is pretty good over all. I misunderstood and thought you were saying that methodological naturalism is the only method to arrive at truth claims as I do not think I have read any previous posts by you saying you thought there are other valid ways of arriving at a true claim. (You may have said it before here, and if you did, I missed it. Or I did read it before and forgot.) Anyway, kudos to you on your argument.

Methodological naturalism is not an epistemology, as I just noticed I said earlier.

Yeah, that thought also crossed my mind last night and I thought about mentioning it today. No need now.

...it was late and I was drunk/stoned.

Why do you get drunk/stoned, Void? I know it is a more personal question and if you want to ignore it, that is fine and I won't press it. I was just wondering.

Methodological naturalism is a method for determining truth that makes an assumption of metaphysical naturalism, but you do not necessarily have to be a metaphysical naturalist to use the epistemology though most are (Scientist theists who actually do science work with the assumption of methodological naturalism).

In principle, I disagree here. I do not think methodological naturalism requires an assumption of metaphysical naturalism. I do think it requires an assumption that nature behaves in a relatively consistent manner and so we can discover through methodological naturalism how nature works. But it never requires one to assume that nature is the only reality (metaphysical naturalism). However, in practice, I'm not sure how one would distinguish my position from yours, except possibly in the mindset of the scientist doing the work.

---

"When you have done that could you tell us how superntural creation can be used to predict results as successfully as evolution does in its application in the fields of medical research and agricultural research?"

Captain,

Please give an example of a prediction that evolution (common descent) has made in the fields of medical research and agricultural research that could not also have been predicted just as well by supernatural creation by a God who initially created various "kinds" and who built into the DNA of those "kinds" the potential for the evolution (change) of those original "kinds".