Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Anomalocaris]

Near parallels of proto-methodological naturalism evolved in cultures without any conception of your god or anything remotely comparable.

Example and evidence please.

Milesian school of the Ionian Pre-Socratic philosophy

It is possible for certain religious concepts to initially encourage methodological naturalism from the top down as a means, in its unwarranted confidence, to further support itself; just as it is also possible for the belief in Santa Clause to encourage the systematic mapping of the North Pole to enable you to visit.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that scientists like Bacon developed methodological naturalism to further support his belief in God? If not, I guess I just don't see your point.

The point is the role religion may or may not have played in development the scientific method does not bear on the validity of the tenants of the religion, now does this "antecedence" imply any relative merit.

But even if they did so encourage the development of useful things, that is no proof for the validity of their tennants, indeed it is not even an argument for such.

Indeed. And I don't think I ever argued any such thing. You commented that "no theory of god has produced much without surreptitiously resorting to methodological naturalism". My point was that Bacon's theory of God produced methodological naturalism and, therefore could be considered to have produced all of what methodological naturalism has produced as well as methodological naturalism itself. It would then seem to follow that at least Bacon's theory of God produced more than methodological naturalism itself has produced.

Methodological naturalism does not follow uniquely from Bacon's theory of god. Nor does christianity show any signs of converging upon the form that would produce Bacon's theory of god. Indeed the most aggressive strains of christianity shows quite the sign of the reverse. So to credit god or his religion with the result of one man's imagination is little short of rediculous.

If you are bogged down attacking an intractable math problem, and some lunatic shouts some nonsense which in the din of the room you misheard as a meaningful word that happen to give you inspiration, Then the equivalent of your theory of the antecednece of god to methodological naturalism would be for you to credit the lunatic's lunacy for your solution to the problem. And from this basis you might argue everyone should become a lunatic.

Using the Santa Clause example, the belief in Santa Clause could be said to have produced all of the art of cartography. But what does it say about you if you continue to believe in the physical existence of Santa Clause for that reason?

Maybe so, but it seems that methodological naturalism did not come to be apart from certain assumptions about God. (Unless you can provide the evidence asked for above.)

Things are not as they seem to you. See above.

That argument is already maximally risible ...

Why? I find it curious that you would hold a position that Bacon's thinking that lead to methodological naturalism is somehow laughable whereas the result of that thinking, methodological naturalism, is superior and usable to prove his original thinking incorrect.

Perhaps you should look at the Santa Clause example again.

If the concept that a quality of a man's work does not in itself validate the cause that prompted him to perform the work, and his work could in fact prove the invalidity of the cause, is still too abstract, you might related to another example: Do you suppose the fact that Maya cosmology led directly to Mayan development of sophisticated algebra means Maya cosmology is therefore better than algebra? Do you see any obstacle in the algebra developed for the service of Mayan cosmology being incorporated into a system that can then be used to discredit Maya cosmology?