Maybe that's why they call them the natural sciences? Without this concept, we wouldn't have evolutionary theory, we'd have a hundred competing creation myths, each one with as much objective justification as the other, as they all rely on their god for the answer.
The problem is that by the very concept it is impossible to falsify theological explanations, and science depends on the concept of falsification. Falsification is how science rids itself of theories that cannot support themselves.
Science is a brutal dog-eat-dog world where new scientific ideas are normally viciously attacked. Don't be surprised when your non-scientific ideas receive at least the same treatment.
The commitment to naturalism means that the 'science community' will *always* interpret *any* evidence as having risen through 'natural' processes.
Or, as in the case of Darwin and others, know what they can show objectively and learn to separate that from personal theological speculation, which is beyond any possible falsification.
'awesome complexity of things'
"Awesome complexity" is a personal point of view, and therefore has no place in science.
The point is that there is no difference between a creation myth with a god as the active agent and a creation myth with natural processes as the active agent. They are both 'a priori' metaphysical decisions. You already have competing creation myths for naturalism, why do you think that's a problem?
"Or, as in the case of Darwin and others, know what they can show objectively and learn to separate that from personal theological speculation, which is beyond any possible falsification."
Again, an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism is indistinguishable from personal theological speculation. Both sides are beyond falsification, not just the one you happen to oppose.
I see you have a problem understanding the concept. Would that be your 'a priori' commitment to naturalism getting in the way?
“The problem is that by the very concept it is impossible to falsify theological explanations, and science depends on the concept of falsification. Falsification is how science rids itself of theories that cannot support themselves.”
Please explain to me how the idea of random origin of the first living cell can be falsified.
When I try to explain to you the staggering odds involved, you simply dismiss the idea of probabilities with a wave of the hand.
Well, if probabilities are not allowed, then how can the random origin of life be falsified?
It would be like trying to “falsify” the claim that the entire text of the Gettysburg address once appeared on the Sahara desert due to random winds. How can that be “falsified” without recourse to probabilities? It can’t.
I realize that you are more than a bit dense, so let me try to spoonfeed this to you. The purely naturalistic version of the origin of the first living cell cannot be falsified, so it is not scientific — according to the very criterion you just parroted.
Let’s see what kind of crap you can come up with on this one. I’m sure it will be entertaining.