Dismissive naturalism

October 16, 2008

I fear that James D. Williams (Letters, 9 October) may be confusing science with naturalism. Science pursues knowledge by following the evidence. Naturalism restricts itself by excluding the possibility of the supernatural, so is forced to reject some evidence.

For example, evidence of design ought to be regarded as possible evidence for a Designer.

Naturalism has to dismiss this as the mere appearance of design because there are some places to which naturalism has decided not to go when following the evidence. This raises a question: is naturalism falsifiable? What kind of contrary evidence might be accepted?

Dave Kimber, St Neots, Cambridgeshire.

Please login or register to read this article

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments