[steve-b]

As Fuller has explained, it is merely a philosophical commitment to so-called methodological naturalism, adopted as a convention by the bulk of the scientific community, which bars reference to the possibility of supernatural causation, again, at least so far as such causation is currently regarded as supernatural. Even Pennock agrees that philosophers of science, those who have examined these matters in detail, do not agree as to the viability or benefits of this so-called methodological commitment.

WTF? Admitting supernatural causation into science is like admitting forged documents into the historical record.

[longshadow]

Admitting supernatural causation into science is like admitting forged documents into the historical record.

... or allowing dice with the dots removed into a crap game!

[read Damon Runyon for details]

[jennyp]

WTF? Admitting supernatural causation into science is like admitting forged documents into the historical record.

That's another one for my archives. Goes along well with this gem from 1999:

It's the same trick Clinton's supporters used -- they divided the accusations against their Glorious Leader onto those which "do not rise to the level of impeachment" (micro-corruption) and those which "if proven, would justify impeachment" (macro-corruption), and placed every charge that did stick, regardless of objective severity, into the former category.

[Gumlegs]

WTF? Admitting supernatural causation into science is like admitting forged documents into the historical record.

You have a problem with See BS News and Dan Ra^ther?