A few questions if I may:

I have a problem getting my head around the differences between methodological and philosophical naturalism. What (other than semantics) is the difference? (I assume there is one and that I am just not seeing it).
Are PNs just more hardcore?
How would they investigate the universe/reality differently?
As soon as we might identify something supernatural, surely it ceases to be supernatural?

Or does MN allow for theistic/deistic leanings, while PN doesn’t?

Or is this more Monty Python, recongising Stan’s right to have babies, even though he actually can’t?
The universe has the right to have a supernatural something even if we can never actually find it?

Also, do you ever deal with (i.e. cover in your lectures) how we interact with the world through our senses as individuals and what implications this system has with regard to how we think etc???
I did an OU course on human senses last year…fascinating stuff, and I’ve often wondered how it fits with the various paradigms used to discuss what science is and what science isn’t and specifically how we are limited as individuals.
i.e. what implications evolution of the human sensory-brain-motor systems might have for how we can (or cannot) possibly interact with our environment, and what that says about the philosophical limitations of science (and maybe even the universe)?
If so, I’d be fascinated to hear what you have to say!!

thanks

Seamus

And if you read his books, I think you will see that – despite what he claims – he is a theistic evolutionist.