[betty boop]

The comment that was in reply to seemed to amount to an argument that because the methodology used to investigate something had to be intelligently designed it was evidence that what was being investigated must have also been intelligently designed.

My comment suggested that Natural Law theory is at the foundation of the entire scientific enterprise and always has been — at least until recent (i.e., post-modern) times.

Here's a "picture" of what Natural Law theory asserts:

Can I "prove it?"

NO.

But I can quite reasonably note that all the scientific progress that human beings have ever made in the course of history was either explicitly or implicitly based on this particular philosophical model.

That being the case, I'm not quite ready to "throw" Natural Law theory "under the bus" of SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS. (Which absent this foundation, I'd be loathe to describe as any kind of "progress" at all.)

[tacticalogic]

That being the case, I'm not quite ready to "throw" Natural Law theory "under the bus" of SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS.

What exactly does "throwning it under the bus" mean, and who's asking you to do it?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ, and thank you for that wonderful graphic!

[CottShop]

[[If intelligence and design are indispensable to science,]]

Miller proved that when he intelligently designed a ‘natural’ (biological law violating) process of complex blood clotting lol