Difference between revisions of "Naturalism and science"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(wikify)
(the most powerful organizations of science hold an ideology, i.e., naturalism)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
* If [[naturalism]] is false, then evidence pointing to the [[supernatural]] will eventually be found. And at that point, continuing to insist on [[methodological naturalism]] really will be just a disguised [[ontological naturalism]], i.e., a disguised [[atheism]]. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]
 
* If [[naturalism]] is false, then evidence pointing to the [[supernatural]] will eventually be found. And at that point, continuing to insist on [[methodological naturalism]] really will be just a disguised [[ontological naturalism]], i.e., a disguised [[atheism]]. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]
 +
 +
* [[Phillip E. Johnson]]: I have a view of science that is now disputed by secularist organizations and also by the most powerful organizations of science. I don't think they speak for science. I think they speak for an ideology that is widely held among contemporary scientists. This is the ideology of naturalism. And that is basically a religious position: The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html]

Latest revision as of 18:07, May 23, 2008

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with [[::Naturalism|Naturalism]]. (Discuss)
  • Phillip E. Johnson: I have a view of science that is now disputed by secularist organizations and also by the most powerful organizations of science. I don't think they speak for science. I think they speak for an ideology that is widely held among contemporary scientists. This is the ideology of naturalism. And that is basically a religious position: The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be. [2]