Tag Archives: Robert Pennock

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

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

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:

Robert Pennock the Conciliator

This entry is part 1 of 5 in the series Pennock, Monton, Matzke, Luskin

Robert Pennock recently wrote a guest blog in US News and World Report, calling for a sane and presumably peaceful end to polarization over the origins of life. His leadership toward that end is (ahem) rather remarkable. Pennock is a philosopher at my alma mater, Michigan State University; and his opinion, of which he has