[ShadowAce]

Show me where I re-defined anything. You can't. I used the dictionary definition. You, though, are redefining the word to exclude the things you find uncomfortable. I notice it took five days for you to come up with that "definition."

Your link to methodological naturalism is a classic example. That process--from the very beginning, before even considering any questions--eliminates those areas the followers find uncomfortable.

True science does not eliminate anything beforehand. Your desire to do so indicates bias, and therefore, application of that is not actual science.

[BroJoeK]

ShadowAce: "I notice it took five days for you to come up with that 'definition.' "

Sorry, but sadly I do have a life outside Free Republic, and it often makes demands which keep me away for days on end.
This morning I have some time, and yours was the first post answered.
So don't read "hesitation" into the delay.

ShadowAce: "Show me where I re-defined anything.
You can't.
I used the dictionary definition.
You, though, are redefining the word to exclude the things you find uncomfortable."

No, you used your own personal definition of "science", in your posts #205 & 219 above.
I have merely pointed out that you are, by law, forbidden from doing so, at least in terms of public education.

As a result of that ruling, anti-scientists have now mostly retreated into the less obnoxious recourse of labeling --

• "operational sciences" for those you agree to, and
• "historical sciences" for those you reject, on religious grounds.

For some real definitions, you can start here,.

Your "historical sciences" include geology, astronomy, paleontology and those parts of biology which touch on evolution.
But, to be scientific, they require both assumptions of

• "methodological naturalism" (natural explanations for natural processes) and
• "uniformitarianism" (the present is key to understanding the past).

Since you reject both assumptions, you reject "historical sciences" as "science", but since that's not lawful in terms of public education, the most you can do is try to sell your distinctions, and note which sciences you support.

ShadowAce: "Your link to methodological naturalism is a classic example.
That process--from the very beginning, before even considering any questions--eliminates those areas the followers find uncomfortable."

"Methodological naturalism" is an accepted distinction, accepted by scientists, which allows anyone of any religious faith to work side-by-side, in fruitful collaboration with any other scientist of any other religious belief -- or of no beliefs.
For scientific purposes we simply:

1. Set-aside all such super-natural beliefs, while we work together to find natural explanations for natural processes, and,
2. In the case of "historical sciences" to find natural explanations for which present processes can help explain evidence from the past.

ShadowAce: "True science does not eliminate anything beforehand.
Your desire to do so indicates bias, and therefore, application of that is not actual science."

Of course it does -- natural "science" by definition is a very limited enterprise, restricted and limited by its a priori assumptions and definitions, key ones being definition of "methodological naturalism" and the assumption of "uniformitarianism".

Science has nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with anything super-natural or, for that matter, with historical processes (i.e., miracles) which left no physical evidence in geological strata.

Once you leave those self-imposed restrictions on science behind, you've left the realm of science and entered some other classification, such as philosophy, theology, metaphysics, etc.

Once in your own realm, you may make whatsoever assertions you wish, regarding the super-natural or miraculous.
You may read directly from your historical texts, if you wish, or take as literal today's reports on "alien abductions" -- whatever you wish to do there is perfectly fine, so long as you don't call your beliefs "science".