[donh]

It is also pretentious nonsense.

Pot, kettle, black. Where are these masses of scientists who DON'T say, "inexplicable miracles are not my business"? We sure get a lot of stinkin' creationist fellow travelers around here who think scientists are mis-behaving three-year olds who need an epistimological spanking, and arrogate that responsibility to themselves, on the basis of their profound understanding of scientific attitudes obtained from comic books.

What the frack is the difference between:

The charlatan and poseur says that since it cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, then no meaningful statements can be made about it, and we must assume -at least in the lab - that the universe is non-supernatural and that an explanation must be sought for all data which excludes anything extramaterial.

and

When confronted by claims of a "miracle" a scientist has two options: S/he can say "this does not belong to my field of study. If it is true, it will have to be verified by some other means than that of my domain." That is a TRUE scientist,

Maybe there is a difference, on the other hand, maybe this is just a dispeptic bag of wind, and you would, in fact, be making more sense in a cloister than you seem to be managing here.

[When_Penguins_Attack]

While I appreciate the concern for my gastronomic weaknesses, the issue can't be waved away that easily. "Science" today constantly erogates to itself the right to make cosmological statements on the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the mechanism by which life has developed. All one has to do is listen to the stuff coming from Dawkins and some of the Dawkins type wannabees here or in any internet discussion to see this is so. These scientists DO need an epistemological spanking, and their arrogance is just ALMOST (although not quite) up to that of some fundamentalists who should know better than to argue about things beyond their ken. Just like a fundy will think himself ready for the fray after reading a Jack Chick tract on "evolution," a big sector of the "science" community insist that they have a right to define the phisolosphical substrate which limits the boundaries acceptable models for the above areas simply because they are scientists.

The DIFFERENCE between the two statements you quoted above is that one of the two will admit that the naturalistic presuppositions of many scientists are not demanded by science itself. There is NO scientific reason why the world cannot be explored from a presupposition that the supernatural is reldolent in it, and sometimes has broken forth into it. Within that viewpoint, there would not be the kind of mocking sneering caustic assumptions about, for example....., sweet little me.

If you want to follow us by pointing out that if Christians really beleived what they teach they would be honest and humble and gracious in discussions like this, I would probably get a bit red in the face and admit you are right.

However, when we get thru the ad hominems, it is all about whether science demands naturalistic presuppositions in its attempt to define the world, life, origins, etc. I say "NO" it does not. And to insist that it does is not "science" at all.