For Joralex - Metaphysics, Science, & Evolution

One point worth mentioning.Johnson's equation of metaphysical and methodological naturalism implicitly assumes scientism - in the form of the view that science can successfully investigate anything that exists. Most scientists would not agree (and therefore even if they were "wrong", Johnson's argument does not apply to them). Johnson has yet to demonstrate the truth of this assumption, or even produce a strong argument for it.I would further note that Johnson's claim amounts to the assertion that there is (or at least can be) a successful evidential apologetic, which contradicts the Presuppositionalist view.

It's an Objectivist (Randian) site. So I'm afraid you have to expect that they'll put Objectivist dogma forward over fact.If you look at the Q&A page they even label one person a "relativist" for suggesting that some Objectivist claims are NOT objective truths.

Just to be absolutely clear, what Holmes is describing is Methodological Naturalism.Aside from that detail I fully agree with his description.Johnson would disagree - but he makes the assumption that anything outside of scientific investigation cannot exist. In short according to Johnson if we cannot at least in principle scientifically prove that God exists, He doesn't.

Pure mathematics isn't untestable, it's just that empirical tests don't usually apply - because there's no empirical content.The empirical content comes when you try to apply the mathematics.