Naturalism/science as a philosophy is moot. Do science. Do philosophy. They’re different. But it all comes down to definitions it seems.
Have you tried to publish a paper that appeals to a supernatural creator for origins of life? How do you know it won’t be published? And I’m the one with too much fantasy.... If it is listed as one possible cause, then it should and probably will be published. I’m published scientifically. Are you? Are you are a reviewer? I have been. The problem is testability. That is a hallmark of the scientific method. Your quote from Ellis is typical to that of a theoretician. Experimentalists just haven’t figured out how to test it yet. See Theory of Relativity for a good example.
Heliocentric assumes a specific CS as center. GR and current thought assumes no universal center. Putting each on the same basis; that dog don’t hunt...
Hoyle is right about coordinate transforms. All physics must be correct independent of the coordinate system. But that is not heliocentrism. It just says all are correct and excludes neither or none.
With respect to the original tenet of this discussion, YEC is not consistent with the scientific method. Just too much juggling of the physics, permittivity and permissivity of free space and other stuff, to seem scientifically correct. Come up with experiments that demonstrate how the speed of light has slowed down dramatically in the last 10k years, that’ll give creation scientists credibility. From what I see, they are just are full of possibles and could bes.
Nope, it's critical to understand. Otherwise you end up believing the philosophical choices are empirically-based. They are not.
"Have you tried to publish a paper that appeals to a supernatural creator for origins of life? How do you know it won’t be published? And I’m the one with too much fantasy...."
Has anyone tried to publish a paper that appeals to a supernatural creator for origins of life? Surely someone has done so if that were possible. Surely you can point to one non-natural scientific paper. If it is possible there should be one somewhere. And I'm the one with too much fantasy? You're the one appealing to TV shows...
"If it is listed as one possible cause, then it should and probably will be published. I’m published scientifically. Are you? Are you are a reviewer? I have been. The problem is testability. That is a hallmark of the scientific method."
Which is why you can't show me one example of a scientific paper where a non-natural conclusion is reached. It's impossible. Won't ever happen. You just won't admit it.
"Your quote from Ellis is typical to that of a theoretician. Experimentalists just haven’t figured out how to test it yet. See Theory of Relativity for a good example."
Uh, if you cannot disprove the theory based on observation; it isn't scientific. Acentrism and geocentrism are equivalent under GR.
"Heliocentric assumes a specific CS as center. GR and current thought assumes no universal center. Putting each on the same basis; that dog don’t hunt..."
Assumes, yes. Shows, no. We can use acentrism in place of heliocentrism. No difference in terms of GR. Still no observable difference. Still not scientific. Still philosophical.
"Hoyle is right about coordinate transforms. All physics must be correct independent of the coordinate system. But that is not heliocentrism. It just says all are correct and excludes neither or none."
That's correct. Acentrism and geocentrism are equivalent and there is no difference under GR. Both are philosophical beliefs.
"With respect to the original tenet of this discussion, YEC is not consistent with the scientific method. Just too much juggling of the physics, permittivity and permissivity of free space and other stuff, to seem scientifically correct. Come up with experiments that demonstrate how the speed of light has slowed down dramatically in the last 10k years, that’ll give creation scientists credibility. From what I see, they are just are full of possibles and could bes."
Neither is the Big Bang consistent with the scientific method. It's full of its own set of possibles and could bes. And lots of jiggling with parameters, magically imposing inflation, magically stopping inflation plus an inability to test the original assumption. Long-ages suffers from the same problem. And Setterfield has accumulated lots of data showing that c is not constant over time.
But, it's like the 3rd grade class that recognized that So America was once joined to Africa. As long as the consensus is that it wasn't, 'science' and 'scientists' will never admit it. Philosophy intrudes again.