[ThinkPlease]

The notion that everything must be made to fit a naturalistic explanation is false. There are many (pseudo)scientists whose version of science is to make all observations fit a naturalistic explanation, no matter what systematic thought applied to observations actually show.

Actually, it is science. As has been posted here many times, assuming a supreme deity is not a very scientific proposition. Science must assume naturalistic explanations or it crosses into other disciplines. End of story.

True scientists believe that science is the pursuit of the truth, not just the pursuit of naturalistic explanation. Failing to admit this leads some to a pseudo-science like evolutionism. It is especially ironic when those who believe that science is the pursuit of naturalistic explanations rather than pursuit of the truth make the argument: "Science shows us that everything has a naturalistic explanation!" And they act as if it surprising that they have found all that they are willing to look for or see. There are none so blind as those who will not see, as they say. They had already defined science to show what they wanted to see a priori to actually practicing science.

Your response is quite a ramble. Other than the initial statement, you aren't making much of a point. Science certainly can never be a pursuit of THE truth, only a form of the truth. There is no such thing as an exact science, after all, all colloquialisms aside.

[C.J.W.]

"Science certainly can never be a pursuit of THE truth..."

It's no wonder that people who argue this do not get to the truth of matters. E.g., if systematic thought applied to observation indicates a non-naturalistic explanation such as design/purpose they will still say it does not no matter how irrational they have to be to do so. People with common sense call a willful misreprentation of the facts a lie. That those who have no interest in the truth might be led into lying about what conclusions systematic thought and observation lead to is not surprising, though.

"Science must assume naturalistic explanations..."

Only it doesn't. And that is a fascist notion of science which leads to pseudo-science. True science began based on the notion of cause and effect. This was based on Aristotle's notion of an unmoved Mover. Saying that all is just Nature and there is no necessity for transcendent cause and effect puts one in the position of denying the cause and effect that science is a study of because you're saying that there are uncaused phenomena in Nature. If you begin with a rationale for rationality, instead of just rationalizations about it, you will be more rational.