Do you see evidence that scientists, practicing scientists today see a commitment to methodological naturalism as integral to their actual scientific work?
A. No. Only the philosophical defenders of a certain kind see this. Q. You’ve discussed dichotomy between natural and supernatural in your testimony as we’ve discussed methodological naturalism. Let me ask you about that. Do you think that the openness of intelligent design to the possibility of causation deemed supernatural, at least by current knowledge, disqualifies intelligent design from science? A. No. And I think — what forms my answer is here is, if you look at the history of science, the kinds of things that in the past had been considered supernatural before they were subject to proper tests and empirical evidence and so forth. One shouldn’t think about supernatural as necessarily referring to God, because supernatural also applies to the level that is below observation, because you might say God is above observation. He’s sort of up there infinitely. But, of course, a lot of the things that were called supernatural include things like, well, Mendel’s genes or atoms, right.
