Which is why using the fallacy of affirming the consequent as though it is some empirical standard of truth is a bad idea. Now there is 'holey logic'.
Better to just honestly admit that you hold to a particular philosophical worldview. That would destroy science's credibility in this area, however because it would then be obvious that it is simply a competing yet opposite philosophy. It is only by irrationally clinging to the claim of being 'scientific' that the scientific 'house of cards' stands to the uninformed masses. This is why 'scientists' resist admitting that they hold to a philosophy.
"Science is in no way forced to say there is no cause except natural. Make a testable experiment that involves the supernatural. Do it. And then analyze the results."
Well, that street goes both ways. Show me one example where science is allowed to come to a conclusion that is non-natural. The fact that you can generate irrational statements doesn't support your belief in naturalism.
You're making the very mistake you claim to see in your homeschool students. You're merely repeating one-sided beliefs without recognizing that they apply equally to your own position. Try thinking outside the naturalism box.
"If you’re saying the scientific method is a philosophy, not true. It’s just a way to solve problems, guidelines as Jack Sparrow would say."
You are confusing the philosophy with the fallacy. They are two separate things.
In evolution's case, they combine to generate an incorrect conclusion that has the appearance of being 'scientific'. It's not scientific, it's philosophical.
Same w/ the Big Bang. The philosophy combines with the fallacy to generate an incorrect conclusion that appears 'scientific'. It's not scientific, it's philosophical.
The scientific method is a fallacy. If P, then Q. Q is observed therefore P is supported. This 'works' and the theory remains 'supported' as long as not-Q remains unobserved. Again, this is why 'science' changes all the time. Not-Q is constantly being observed and 'science' constantly changes.
Since the origin of the universe and of life is not observed, but inferred, not-Q can never be observed and P can never be refuted. This is why evolution is, at it's core, a philosophy and not science.
I'm assuming you mean hypothesize, test,evaluate is a philosophy. I so, I concur. Never thought of it as such. It's just a way to solve problems that deals with what we can observe. And is repeatable. To many disparate researches.
Well, that street goes both ways. Show me one example where science is allowed to come to a conclusion that is non-natural. The fact that you can generate irrational statements doesn't support your belief in naturalism.
Ok then, beginning of life. Science just doesn't know how life began. The reasons are varied. The hypotheses are many. No one theory exists. And a creator is one such hypothesis. But the key to a scientific explanation is testability. And a Creator, if we could look at many different worlds with life, has the possibility for testability. A variant of this was a Deep Space 9 episode I think
And P can be refuted. Look at early ideas for origin of universe.From Earth centered to Heliocentric to Galaxycentric to Universe itself. P is often rejected due to data and predictions based on P.
Have you ever done real science???? Seriously.