Hi Dimensio,
I can argue his points but I was focusing on the larger topic of the irrationality of Naturalism. Specifically, related to this site is the political dimension. I don't believe there is a basis for a conservative philosophy and a belief in Naturalism. Well, I would go even further and say that Naturalism is irrational. The constitution can only be a dynamic document based on the majority during a specific time in history. The notion of honesty and truth is of no relevance other than to keep order. Also, morality can only be transient and rights are only defined by the majority. Who can say that abortion of the aged or those under 18 is wrong? It just depends on what society says at a given time. How can we be critical of any "terrorist"? How can you say that the terrorists that crashed into the towers are evil? It is just their perspective against yours with no weight given more to another. In essence you are only left with a sappy liberalism. So why are you a Naturalist?
I would say there is a philosophical disconnect for those who hold to Naturalism and are conservative (see previous post). So if the conservative philosophy is correct then perhaps a Naturalistic view of Science is incorrect!
Perhaps we should not bind science to a strict naturalistic view that does not even allow the possibility that God may exist. Perhaps we should require science to be more agnostic. We should hold the view that we don't know if God exists and allow science to investigate cases where we assume God does exist. What would it hurt if we assumed the initial conditions and boundary conditions of the universe were constrained by God in a specific fashion. Maybe these results will give better explanations for what we see today.