[Petrosius]

Here is the true nature of the debate. It is not a question of faith versus reason but of epistemology. I will agree with you that on the research level a naturalistic assumption is necessary. But it is when the theories are presented in the classroom as fact and not as a working hypothesis that we get into trouble.

[general_re]

Science confines itself to the material. I have no a priori objections to discussing non-material causes for material events - or non-material events, I suppose - but let's not call it science when we do. It's not, essentially by definition.