Browsing through the common questions section of this website, I was startled to come upon a description of the Biologos approach (or philosophy) that manifestly reveals the “question-begging” fallacy that has bothered me about the approach for so long. In the section comparing EC to ID, the site states unapologetically:
“…we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena.”
But this is a textbook “question begging” fallacy. No one (Discovery institute, Ken Ham) would dispute that there must be natural explanations to natural phenomena. The very question is as to whether or not particular phenomena are or are not “natural”. It simply begs the question to state we should seek a natural explanation for natural phenomena.
Methodological naturalism has always been my biggest qualm with EC, and the core reason for my continued skepticism… The method always seemed a question-begging approach that would preclude anyone from recognizing intelligent agency if it were in fact there and detectable.
Now, I’m afraid it simply confirms my suspicions that methodological naturalism is at core an unreliable and fallacious question-begging method, to see it so clearly embraced yet described in such textbook-clear “question-begging” language right on the main Biologos FAQ page.
Can anyone appreciate my concern? Am I missing anything obvious?