Science is naturalistic

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 Further Reading 7 Related claims 8 See Also 9 Acknowledgments

Claim

Science is based on naturalism, the unproven assumption that nature is all there is.

Source

• Johnson, Phillip E., 1990 (Oct.). Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. First Things [1]
• Dembski, William A., 1998. What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design. [2]

Responses

1. Science is about observing the physical universe and identifying, as best as can be determined, the processes that govern it. The act of identifying physical processes does not mandate the faith that the processes are all there is.
2. Science acknowledges that nature is all that humans can interact with directly, and it excludes from consideration any subject matter where the scientific method cannot be applied. Unlike the practitioners of some other disciplines, scientists are generally able to define and respect their own boundaries.
3. It is only possible to develop scientific theories if direct divine influences on the physical world are excluded, since otherwise the action of divine forces becomes an equally good explanation as any other for any phenomenon noted, and no consistency can be expected between experiments, as it would be unknowable whether they were being interfered with by the divine. The universe could not be expected to maintain causality, and there would be no point in trying to understand it logically. Therefore, science presupposes naturalism, as it applies to the physical world (see Ockham's Razor).
4. Naturalism does not assume or require that nature is "all there is". What naturalism does propose is that all natural phenomenon can be explained purely via natural causes, without needing to invoke supernatural causes. This proposal has been a resounding success since it was first uttered, and creationists are apparently the only ones who feel left behind. No one has ever provided a consistently irrefutable objection to the proposal of naturalism, and all evidence that has been scrutinized reinforces the validity of naturalism as a route to fact.
5. So, how exactly does stating "GODDIDIT" as an explanation serve to explain anything?
6. When it comes down to it, the "supernatural" cannot be "real": because if we could then perceive it then it would be part of the observable world - and would no longer be supernatural.
7. add fallacies

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Straw Man (naturalism is misrepresented)

External Links

• Mark Isaak's page for this claim [3]
• CreationWiki's comments [4]
• Isaak, Mark, 2002. A Philosophical Premise of 'Naturalism'? [5]

Further Reading

• Padgett, Alan G., 2000 (Jul./Aug.). Creation by Design. Books and Culture 6(4): 30. [6]

Related claims

• Evolutionists interpret evidence based on their preconceptions
• Naturalistic science will miss a supernatural explanation
• Science's method rules out design

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments