I think I’m going to back you up on this one, Richard. Whatever misconceptions you may have about evolution, there’s one thing about methodological naturalism that you seem to understand that a lot of Christians on the side of evolutionary creation/theistic evolution/pro-science miss.
When we talk about “methodological naturalism,” what we say and what people hear are two completely different things.
We can point out until the cows come home that methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are two different things. We can explain until we’re blue in the face that when we say “methodological naturalism” we aren’t denying God and we aren’t ruling out the possibility of miracles. But that doesn’t change the fact that just by using the expression “methodological naturalism,” people will hear a denial of God. They will hear a rejection of the possibility of miracles, whether that is our intention or not.
As advocates for a responsible and honest approach to science that takes it seriously, we need to remember who we are talking to. We are talking to people who believe that vast swathes of the scientific community are motivated first and foremost by the desire to oppose God and undermine faith, and for whom the desire to figure out how things work comes a distant second. If we’re using vocabulary that gives so much as a hint of supporting that perception, we’re just going to see the shields go up, and our highfalutin explanations of what “methodological naturalism” does and doesn’t mean aren’t going to penetrate them.
That’s why the most important thing I have to say to other Christians involved in this side of the debate is STOP DEFENDING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM!!! One of the most important rules of clear communication is that you need to use vocabulary that your audience can relate to and understand. That’s why I focus on concepts such as factual accuracy, rigour, quality control, reproducible results, and not making things up. Yes, it may take longer and more effort to spell these things out than simply saying “methodological naturalism,” but it’s clearer and it’s less open to misunderstanding.