Correct.
Nor does science require opposition to “ideological naturalism,” whatever that may be.
Nevertheless science is certainly naturalistic, built upon the assumption that there are laws of nature to explain the behavior of things in nature. Using to God or other supernatural things to explain the things of nature is contrary to what science is all about.
Huh? Intellectual honesty would seemingly require Mitchell to acknowledge that “naturalism” differs from “natural science”. He might even be able to put a name on what “naturalism” is, which he hasn’t done yet.
We have yet to see if Mitchell would use the term “ideology” for “naturalism”. It might be beyond his “natural scientist” pay grade, but we’ll see if he can do it.
No, this is wrong. It reveals philosophical impoverishment.
And I would say this reveals a theocratic agenda in opposition to science.
Well, that would be again your mistaken interpretation, Mitchell, as those are not my views, only your confusion.
And by the way, returning to the OP, as moderator Laura made a good call to split threads, how many theories of evolution are there, Mitchell? Thanks for returning to the OP topic.
Are you both even talking about the same thing when you use the word “naturalism”?
Who knows? I have defined what I mean but Gregory cannot be bothered it seems.
PLEASE start another thread about “naturalism”. I apologize for engaging Mitchell about it.
I will NOT address “naturalism” again in this thread, which has a different topic title and focus. Thanks for understanding.
What is this thread actually about?
“I have defined what I mean”
Nope, you didn’t actually. Self-deception again. The record is available to confirm this.
If you actually want to define “naturalism”, then please go do it in another thread. Your claims so far are philosophically impoverished, quite clearly confusing naturalism with scientism. PLEASE, start a different thread & don’t raise “naturalism” here again. Thanks.
How many theories of evolution are there?
You said:
“The theory of evolution, like every scientific theory, is ethically neutral.”
I cited the subfield of “evolutionary ethics”, and on that basis disagreed with you.
Also noted that you used a singular “the” as if there is ONLY ONE “theory of evolution”. I believe that’s untrue. Do you wish to contend otherwise?
Yeah, it was about that originally, but is it still about that?
Why does anyone need to define naturalism? It’s obvious what it means and it’s the starting point, the ground zero of being disinterested before any consideration of faith claims.
Different thread, thanks again
Why’s that? And what’s that? What thread?
How about if you want to discuss “naturalism”, do so in another thread? Please be welcome to start it yourself if you’d like.
If you want to engage in this thread, however, the topic is: “How many theories of evoluion are there?”
Thanks.
Okay… looks like this thread is going off the rails quickly. Veiled insults and mockery are not in line with the gracious dialog we hope to foster here, so I’m going to close this down for a little bit and try to sort out all the flags.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.