Oh, I guess maybe I can make sense of what's going on here after all.
Science looks only at detectable stuff, and tries to explain what it sees in terms of detectable stuff. Explanations in terms of as yet indetectable stuff, such as God, or ID or string theory or continental drift, or a relative universe, have to eventually put up or shut up in terms of detectability.
The only claim science makes about indectable causes, such as God or ID, is that it doesn't know squat.
since it seems to bear repeating in formal philosophical vocabulary: philosophical materialism holds that material is all there is. Neither science nor I advance this claim, no matter how hard you squint in order to see the use of the word "material" as a claim to formal philosophical materialism.
Are mathematical formulas "detectable"? I think you are trying to imply science is based on the dogma of empiricism which is simply not true. There is empirical science and there is theoretical science.
Explanations in terms of as yet indetectable stuff, such as God, or ID or string theory or continental drift, or a relative universe, have to eventually put up or shut up in terms of detectability.
So since string theory is undetectable therefore it is considered supernatural just as God? (actually you may be closer than you think). As for your "put up or shut up" statement - that is illogical - basic Aristotelian logic demonstrates absence of data is proof of nothing.
The only claim science makes about indectable causes, such as God or ID, is that it doesn't know squat.
So you are claiming science does not know squat about anything that cannot be "detected"? What about theoretical science?
ID is every bit as detectable as the evolution-based explanations that are supposed to refute it.
since it seems to bear repeating in formal philosophical vocabulary: philosophical materialism holds that material is all there is. Neither science nor I advance this claim, no matter how hard you squint in order to see the use of the word "material" as a claim to formal philosophical materialism.
More denial. This is your definition of science:
donh(672): Science concerns itself with material explanations of material phenomenon, because that's the function of science.
You claim all science all can do is create material explanations of material phenomenon.
This is the definition of materialism:
Materialism is the philosophical view that the only thing that can truly be said to 'exist' is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of 'material' and all phenomena are the result of material interactions.
Like it or not - deny all you like - your definition of science and the definition of materialism are identical. I don't doubt you do not fully understand your definition of science is rooted in the dogma of Materialism - but it is. Your concept of science starts with a material assumption. That is the dogma of Materialism. Science should not start out with any a priori assumptions other than man exists and is capable of rational thought. Understand that neither you nor science has proved all that exists is material therefore holding an assumption like that is dogma - not a scientific conclusion.