[VadeRetro]

I am sorry, that is simply not the case. Naturalist dogma is that the possiblity of Divine Intervention as a cause must be ruled out "a prior" regardless of where the evidence might lead.

There's methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism recognizes that you can only study a lawful, predictable nature; you cannot study that which is defined as supernatural. Philosophical naturalism says that nature is not just all you can study but all there is. Not everyone buys the second idea. Not everyone even thinks the second idea is important. In any event, the first idea is definitely important for doing good science.

[Ahban]

mmmmm. I find myself in your shoes when you object to dividing evolution into "microevolution" and "macroevolution". You maintain that there should not be any separation because they are both contiguous subsets of the same thing. I will turn your own arguments back on you in this case. Methodological naturalism is simply applied philosophical naturalism. There should not be any real separation because they are both continguous subsets of the same thing.

You may not be able to study the "supernatural" but you can rule out natural causes. The more certain you are that all natural causes have been ruled out then the more certain you can be that the supernatural hypothesis is the correct one. Can one ever be 100% sure of the supernatural hypotheses? Probably not, but the same is true of natural hypothesis. We just have confidence levels.

There is no fundamental scientific reason to exclude consideration of the supernatural hypothesis "a priori". It is a PHILOSOPHICAL decision appled to a METHODOLOGY, substantiating my contention that they ought not to be considered as separate and thus non-intersecting entites.