Science Doesn’t Need Methodological Naturalism

This entry is part 1 of 6 in the series Science Doesn’t Need MN

(Update 3/29: Please regard this series as a first draft with important revisions yet to come.) It’s virtually a given that science cannot operate apart from methodological naturalism. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education provides a definition for the term as she expresses some of the devotion that is felt for it: …

March 21, 2011 – 4:15 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , , | Comments (7)

Why Science Doesn’t Need Methodological Naturalism

This entry is part 2 of 6 in the series Science Doesn’t Need MN

(Update 3/29: Please regard this series as a first draft with important revisions yet to come.) I wrote yesterday on three justifications for requiring Methodological Naturalism (MN) as an operating principle for science. (Not all scientists or philosophers of science hold to MN in that way, I hasten to add; I am only objecting to those …

March 22, 2011 – 5:07 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Comments (9)

Why Science Doesn’t Need Methodological Naturalism (2)

This entry is part 3 of 6 in the series Science Doesn’t Need MN

(Update 3/29: Please regard this series as a first draft with important revisions yet to come.) Two days ago I wrote about the theology implicit in one justification of Methodological Naturalism’s (MN’s) being a requirement for science. I was responding then to the second of the three Justifications for MN I had listed in the first …

March 24, 2011 – 11:04 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , , , | Comments (17)

Why Scientists Should Reject Methodological Naturalism

This entry is part 4 of 6 in the series Science Doesn’t Need MN

(Update 3/29: Please regard this series as a first draft with important revisions yet to come.) Review In three prior posts in this series I shown that Methodological Naturalism (MN) relies on assumptions that are: Theological rather than scientific Disputable rather than firmly established Unnecessary rather than required for science In particular I have shown that …

March 25, 2011 – 1:26 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

Regularism: A Better Alternative to Methodological Naturalism

This entry is part 5 of 6 in the series Science Doesn’t Need MN

(Update 3/29: Please regard this series as a first draft with important revisions yet to come.) I have just completed an argument to the effect that “Methodological Naturalism” (MN) is a false and flawed requirement for the practice of natural science. MN’s assumptions are theological rather than scientific, as witnessed by the fact that there is …

March 25, 2011 – 2:16 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , | Comments (118)

Methodological Naturalism and Regularism: A Postscript

This entry is part 6 of 6 in the series Science Doesn’t Need MN

I’ve finished this series; I’ve said what I intended to say about Methodological Naturalism, except for this: I’m regarding it as only a first draft. I plan to write it up as a unified article, removing redundancies, clarifying arguments, incorporating further research, especially from Robert Pennock, and including more ideas from comments. I appreciate any …

March 26, 2011 – 8:03 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Comments (1)