Replies

You don't seem to think science HAS any limitations.

As far as what it may ask and theorize about there are no limitations. As far as what it can answer, it is limited to human reason. There is no such thing as *the* scientific method, and there is no such thing as pure objectivity on the part of human observers. Furthermore, there is no pure definition of science, but only a general understanding that it consists of "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

There is more than one theory that can adequately explain the objective universe, just as there is more than one way of doing science. The selection of theories itself is not based upon empirical principles. Even the notion that reality favors simple theories over complex ones is a philosophical principle.

What . . . is the use of making a claim you can't test?

You tell me. You make the claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena." Now test your claim. If you cannot test it then it is, as you say, scientifically "useless." Even if a claim is testable, it can only be tested within limits.

Put up or shut up.

The birth of western science may be attributed to religious assumptions regarding intelligent design. What does Darwinian evolution's disposal of any intelligent agent have to offer science? Is there something science cannot accomplish by discarding the notion of intelligent design? Also, please explain what harm has come to science by assuming an intelligent designer is behind all that science can observe and do. Put up or shut up.

" As far as what it may ask and theorize about there are no limitations."

Sure it has limitations, built into what can and can't be tested. Some subjects are for the time being at least off limits for epistemological reasons.

"Furthermore, there is no pure definition of science, but only a general understanding that it consists of "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

What is the experimental investigation of God going to look like? What is the observation of God going to look like? What is the description of God going to look like?

"The selection of theories itself is not based upon empirical principles."

It's not based on whim. Its based on evaluation of evidence, and the testing of that evidence.

" You tell me."

Bait and switch. You make the claim that the untestable proposition that God exists and is responsible for the order we see is examinable by science. What good is an untestable claim? Where does the research go with nothing to test?

"You make the claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena." Now test your claim. "

I have. I wrote it out to you earlier today, you just ignored it. Go back and look it up yourself.

" The birth of western science may be attributed to religious assumptions regarding intelligent design."

Examples. Your uncited assertions are meaningless.

" What does Darwinian evolution's disposal of any intelligent agent have to offer science?"

The same thing that every science's avoidance of invoking untestable claims offers science; a means to test the claims one makes.

"Also, please explain what harm has come to science by assuming an intelligent designer is behind all that science can observe and do. Put up or shut up."

It introduces an untestable assumption masquerading as science. It conditions people to stop looking for testable claims and instead trains people to give up when the least bit of difficulty threatens their inquiry. It's a gutless choice for cowardly people.

Now YOU put up or shut up:

How can one investigate God? What practical use is there of a claim that isn't testable? Who in their right mind would be convinced by a claim that isn't testable? You claim that God is capable of being investigated by science; tell us how or move along.