No, it's not. It's based on the reality that methodological investigation and measurement of natural phenomena is the most effective way to produce scientific results. This assumption is reinforced both by the methodology's usefulness and success, and by the unavailability of any useful or successful methodology for investigating or measuring supernatural phenomena.
In short, no one has yet come up with a "methodological supernaturalism" that produces repeatable or practical scientific information.
Scientists Interpret the available evidence according to Methodological Naturalism.
As they must. Scientific information must be ideologically neutral to be of use. You may personally choose to put a subsequent theological spin on derived information, but the archive of scientific information is itself unconcerned with your theology.
It is these Atheistic assumptions being applied to science that YEC's have a beef with.
And the best way to express this "beef" with methodological naturalism is to propose and demonstrate a "methodological supernaturalism" that has some practical application for science.
I, for one, would be very interested.
"Methodological Naturalism is based on dogmatic assumptions that, among other things, there is no God.""No, it's not. It's based on the reality that methodological investigation and measurement of natural phenomena is the most effective way to produce scientific results. This assumption is reinforced both by the methodology's usefulness and success, and by the unavailability of any useful or successful methodology for investigating or measuring supernatural phenomena.
In short, no one has yet come up with a "methodological supernaturalism" that produces repeatable or practical scientific information.Scientists Interpret the available evidence according to Methodological Naturalism.As they must. Scientific information must be ideologically neutral to be of use. You may personally choose to put a subsequent theological spin on derived information, but the archive of scientific information is itself unconcerned with your theology.It is these Atheistic assumptions being applied to science that YEC's have a beef with.And the best way to express this "beef" with methodological naturalism is to propose and demonstrate a "methodological supernaturalism" that has some practical application for science.
I, for one, would be very interested.
Once agian, quoting post 293"This rule states that scientists must look for a naturalistic cause (and only a naturalistic cause) for a natural phenomenon. In other words, scientists cannot invoke supernatural explanations."[excerpt]
[[In short, no one has yet come up with a “methodological supernaturalism” that produces repeatable or practical scientific information]]
Nor does ID have to- nor do they even attempt to contrary to all the false claims abotu ID- ID merely has to scientifically show that naturalism is not the best (or even biolgogically possible) means for IC- and all they have to do to be a valid science is give neough evidence to show that intellgience is needed- just as any forensic scientist does- their scientific obligation does not have to go any further by suggesting or showing the supernatural means- this is somethign many objectors to ID are absolutely mistaken about and which form hteir false statements against ID.
[[You may personally choose to put a subsequent theological spin on derived information, but the archive of scientific information is itself unconcerned with your theology.]]
Which ios good news for ID because hte evidence shows that the ideological assumption that Macroeovlution happened refutes hte idea altogether.
[[And the best way to express this “beef” with methodological naturalism is to propose and demonstrate a “methodological supernaturalism” that has some practical application for science.]]
No it isn’t. That is a false statement- ID isn’t about a ‘beef’, and it certainlky does not, as explained above, need to demonstrate any methodological supernaturalism- if htat were the core of science, then scientists who study Macroevolution would have to produce the methodology by wich species supernaturally violated biolgoy and natural laws- so by claiming hwat you just did, you have given an opinion about science that shows the hypothesis that youbeleive in is actually unscientific.- niether side need produce a methodolgical supernaturalism- they simply have to give neough factual science to point in one direction or the other (and further to show hte opposition hypothesis isn’t biolgically possible)