Abstract
In the recent exchange between Moreland, Meyer and Bube, (Perspectives, March 1994, pp. 2-25) I find myself in substantial agreementwith everyone. So why do they disagree? There seem to be two minor unresolved issues the methodology of science and the law it investigates.First, let us consider methodology. Let us term science a freely chosen cultural "game" in which we are involved. In a game, the players have the right to set the rules. Thus, responding to Moreland and Meyer, it seems perfectly legitimate for the "players" to go with "methodological naturalism," in the sense of only considering "law-bound" theories. Thus, science would be defined as the study of natural law, and intrusive acts would be excluded from the game.