I found myself searching ironchariots wiki on methodological naturalism. I wanted to check it out because of my recent interactions with the Matt Dillahunty. Given that Matt is wrong-headed on this issue, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I find the article well written and correct.
I did find myself wanting to add a citation to the article. At least, I would have to review the other articles on the wiki to see if that's common style, and find a style guide, but I wanted to add this:
>How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism
>(final draft – to appear in Foundations of Science)
>Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke, Johan Braeckmanhttps://sites.google.com/site/maartenbo ... naturalism
It's a (seemingly) scholarly article describing in great detail the position outlined in the existing wiki article. The article is in the context of intelligent design which makes it perfect for our purpose. It gives many citations to many in the field, some you may already know, such as Daniel Dennett and Victor Stenger.
Yes, this issue is a personal pet peeve of mine, and a crusade, and I thought I'd help spread the word, crush intrinsic methodological naturalism, improve science literacy, and crush theists who think that science has nothing to say about religious claims and supernatural claims.