[Quark2005]

...please go to the South wing, and ask for professor Dawkins’ laboratory, the course name is "atheism 101".

Why do you assume atheism is the only viewpoint compatible with the study of the natural world? Many scientists with a strong belief in God simply acknowledge that their belief is outside the scope of their career choice. In any case, how does one use the scientific method to test for the presence of a supernatural agent? I am by no means trivializing religious belief or the importance of spirituality, I am only wondering how science could be used to give them validation.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! But, er, I am neither assuming nor asserting that "atheism is the only viewpoint compatible with the study of the natural world".

My post 111 explores the difference between methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism and political activism of atheists. The three often are wrongfully conflated in these debates - and by certain "movers and shakers" in the academia, e.g. Lewontin, Singer and Dawkins.

Post 920 was meant to be humorous - forcing the imaginary students to acknowledge ideological prejudice and sort themselves out:

I can imagine an amusing scene as students gather to learn and do biology. The professor announces “this course is on the methodologically natural science of biology. If any of you take this to mean the metaphysically natural science of biology, you are in the wrong room – please go to the South wing, and ask for professor Dawkins’ laboratory, the course name is "atheism 101". If any of you reject methodological naturalism as a presupposition in science, then please proceed to the North wing and ask for professor Behe’s laboratory, the course name is "intelligent design 101". Whew. Ok, now all of you who remain – we will be learning and doing biology with the presumption, not the metaphysics, of naturalism. If any of you try to bring your own ideology or metaphysics to the lab, you will be ejected from the class altogether.” LOL!

You asked “how does one use the scientific method to test for the presence of a supernatural agent?”

But that is not the objective of the intelligent design movement. The objective of the movement is to remove the presupposition of naturalism in scientific investigations. Go where the evidence leads without unwarranted axioms and postulates – like physicists and mathematicians do.

More importantly, the intelligent design hypothesis needs to be understood separately from the intelligent design movement. (more in my post 998) Conflating them results in the same error as conflating methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.