[Ahban]

"Naturalist dogma is that things should be taken straightforwardly to be what the physical evidence says they are."

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.

Evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We beleive it because the only alternative is Special Creation, and that is unthinkable."

Atheist Scientist Richard Lewonten, " Materialism is absolute......we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door."

I have had evos right here on this board try to tell me that it is "unscientific" to even consider the possiblilty of Divine Intervention as a cause for anything. I suppose that means we must continue to seach for "natural causes" even if all evidence points to the contrary. THAT is wrong headed.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is unproved and unprovable.

So is any theory in science. That's the nature of science.

We beleive it because the only alternative is Special Creation, and that is unthinkable.

An ignorant statement. Rule out evolution, and you simply have no scientific explanation for the origin of the species. You don't automatically assume a divine event simply because you can't think of a better explanation. Do you, by chance, have a reference for this quote?

Materialism is absolute......we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.

Such is the nature of science.

I have had evos right here on this board try to tell me that it is "unscientific" to even consider the possiblilty of Divine Intervention as a cause for anything.

That would be because science cannot address the supernatural. As such, any speculation into supernatural intevention of any kind is inherently unscientific. Doesn't mean that it's false, just means that the scientific method cannot be applied.

[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.