Let's try to expand our common ground ...
No, CSI (Crime Scene Investigation) stuff which requires detecting intelligence.
That is, if within MN we look for natural explanations without any intelligent intervention rather than just excluding "supernatural" intervention.
Not sure what you're saying, because MN does
include natural intelligent causes, e.g., for effectively investigating Easter Island statues, Mt. Rushmore, Stonehenge, SETI, and evil-doers on TV crime shows. And we already have lots of science about how the corresponding intelligent agents might and do behave, i.e., we can form testable scientific theories about these intelligent mysteries.
Now, in every way, the butterfly distracting the Japanese soldier seems entirely random. BUT, what if some super-intelligent being who created and the world and could foretell the future carefully organized the world to unfold that particular butterfly to be born in just the right place, so as to land on the Japanese soldier who then missed his target. Is there anyone who can tell whether such a "natural" event was actually by design?
Again, no one claims that MN is flawless or sufficient, which is why science only provisionally
assumes MN. MN merely asks whether that one butterfly's act is a statistically reasonable natural
occurrence to explain the missed shot. And the answer is clearly "yes".
We can believe in a supernatural explanation of the butterfly's act for some higher plan or moral purpose, but we also must admit that the natural explanation is consistent with natural laws. For science to reject MN, we need to find something much
better than the butterfly example.
You see the "glaring flaws" in ID thought, [...]
Incorrect. I don't have a problem with ID's general approach. In fact, I hope someone finds something rigorous. But what I do have a problem with is that specific ID arguments have been poor. For just one example, Dembski has refused for years to constructively respond to any of the glaring flaws in his probability calculations.
Don't believe(disbelieve) someone, just because you agree(disagree) with their conclusions. Understand their arguments, then decide.
I'm inclined to say the ID isn't science, but neither is MN.
You're not allowed to re-define science
. Use a different word, if you want to define a new discipline.
As a side, for me there is truly nothing random.
Repeating the exact same quantum experiment can produce 1 of 2 outcomes with equal probability, with no way to determine which of the 2 outcomes will happen next. How is that behavior not truly random?
Regarding what Methodological Naturalism does or doesn't include, keep in sight my words: "if within MN we look for natural explanations without any intelligent intervention rather than just excluding "supernatural" intervention
We had in the distant past a discussion about what I'd call a philosophical neutral Methodological Naturalism, which I think is more etymologically correct and keeps out ANY
intelligent intervention. On the other hand, you then argued such an idea of Methodological Naturalism is wrong and that it only excludes God's activity, and so can and does include human intelligence since we do evidently experience us existing in the "natural" world.
I agree, that your interpretation of MN is the correct and popular understanding. Thus, MN is not philosophically neutral at all, but sets up a framework that I believe isn't true. As I mentioned, this may lead to wrong answers, or even thwart deeper investigation if it is accepted that something has no purpose (e.g., vestiges) so not worth investigating.
On the other hand, Intelligent Design also is not philosophically neutral. It too sets up a framework that many Naturalistic scientists believe is untrue, and unnecessary. The worry here too is that the answer will always be a "God did it" rather than truly undertaking scientific investigating.
, however, in both... while the frameworks already include metaphysical assumptions (either God's existence or lack thereof), these frameworks rarely if at all usurp the methodological scientific work being undertaken. Not until one is trying to prove God or rule out God, do these frameworks start becoming troublesome. Seriously though, science is perhaps the last area one would turn to in order to prove or disprove God's existence. Philosophy is much more the area.
Despite my endorsing the Evidence from Science for God website
, which is kind of quite dated but I think is still good, it is more about presenting a compatible view of science with particular positions within Christianity -- rather then really proving God's existence. It is an apologetic (defense) website. Science is mentioned here and there, to not really prove God's existence, but rather largely defend and at most hint to God's existence. I mean the "big bang" singularity in itself, has long puzzled physicists.
To get back on track, with people who believe in God, it is generally believed that God put in place and sustains natural orderly laws. This was the premise taken to the table in scientific work carried out by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal. All of whom were Christian and interested to further understand how God set things up.
Intelligent Design as a framework isn't so much about proving God, or at least it can't really be, since it already kind of sets out with such an "Intelligence" already existing. It allows for true design
to be presumed rather than an imitation design
(since perhaps Darwin who wrote of "natural selection" imitating design).
What I'd propose then is that the metaphysical sentiments be called a non-issue, and to just let scientists do science with whatever philosophical framework they bring to the table. So long as it doesn't impede their scientific investigation. What ramifications does that have on Methodological Naturalism given its philosophical bias I don't know?
Many Atheists and Agnostics believe thorough-going Christians or Theists can't do this, but history and even the scientists today (many of who believe God exists or some supernatural force) proves otherwise. Equally on the other side there is skepticism towards those who rule out god, that they'll be led up all sorts of absurd paths -- like if someone really did try to prove how Mt Rushmore formed based upon natural physical laws.
You have quackery science for sure. And I'll freely admit there is much pseudo-science pushed by religious people. Many are not in that category. And to be equally fair, I also see a very think cloud and fog that naturalistic philsophy wrongly places over people and science in general. It considers itself the policeman of this or that idea or explanation that can be tolerated regardless of whether its metaphysical considerations are wrong.