Replies

"Supernatural elements are outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Any claims invoking supernatural elements are not scientific."

Well the problem is the labeling of things as "supernatural" and thus attempting to exclude them from scientific study.

Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation and thus supernatural. If the evidence points to an outside influence in the development of living things, then so be it. Whereever the evidence leads that's science.

I say that to the extent that you can study God either directly or by inference through his actions past or present, He should be included in Science.

Now admittedly He doesn't subject Himself to laboratory procedures prefering to deal in matters of man's heart. I think he does leave a considerable trail of evidence. But it's evidence of His choosing. No scientist is going to order him into a laboratory for study. Any more than democratic skeptics are going to get Bush to turn over all executive papers for their scrutiny. I suspect that if God did submit himself to the laboratory, so that Man would have no choice but to admit that He is, than man would effectively have no choice whether to worship Him or not. Sure I know of one Freeper who acknowledges God's existence but chooses not to worship him, but his choice seems complete illogical and foolhardy to me. And there was a point where God was actually going to live among Israel and as His glory shown over the mountains, the people of Israel realized there was no way they were going to survive with a Perfect Holy Just All Powerful God in their presence, and they quickly had a change of heart and asked him to keep a distance.

Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation and thus supernatural.

I believe that you are redefining "natural" and "supernatural" to definitions not used by science. Redefining terms does not demonstrate your point, however.

If the evidence points to an outside influence in the development of living things, then so be it. Whereever the evidence leads that's science.

If the outside influence is outside of the fundamental properties of the universe, and thus not constrained by them, then this outside influence cannot be explained by science.

I say that to the extent that you can study God either directly or by inference through his actions past or present, He should be included in Science.

Throughout human history literally thousands of deities known as "gods" -- many of them mutually exclusive -- have been worshipped and acknowledged as a cause of events. To which particular deity do you refer, and why should that one specific deity be included in science to the exclusion of all others?

Now admittedly He doesn't subject Himself to laboratory procedures prefering to deal in matters of man's heart.

This would suggest that the deity to which you refer is not objectively testable, which would make it outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Emotional inferences are subjective, and not useful for science.

I think he does leave a considerable trail of evidence. But it's evidence of His choosing.

Please provide a means to test for this evidence.