[Dimensio]

The "justification" he supplies to support his naturalist dogma in no way undoes the fact that he is admiting that he is refusing to consider theistic options regardless of evidence.

What evidence? He's denying supernatural explanations because when you start allowing for them, you can explain any gap in your knowledge with "then a miracle occurs", and thus you really don't ever learn anything.

[Ahban]

" He's denying supernatural explanations because when you start allowing for them, you can explain any gap in your knowledge with "then a miracle occurs", and thus you really don't ever learn anything."

The goal then just shifts to HOW God did it. The search for cause and effect would still continue. Think about how much science took place when there was a Christian world view. Did that sort of thinking infect Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Mendal, and the host of other giants of Western Science who were Christains?

Actually it is now NATURALISM that poses the biggest threat to scientific progress. What is now considered "supernatural" may one day be shown to be merely a higher plane of nature- if investigations in those areas are allowed to proceed.