Replies

The claim of being 'scientific' is merely an admission that acceptable answers are strictly limited to naturalistic methodologies.

Yup. Those are the only ones that fit. I leave supernaturalistic methodologies for philosophy and theology.

If the very question you are trying to answer is natural vs supernatural creation, limiting your acceptable answers to only 'natural' ones would seem to be extremely willful ignorance in it's own right.

If it can't meet the criteria it isn't science. To say that eschewing supernatural explanations is "willful ignorance" is an ignorant statement (no offense). Supernaturalism doesn't do anything for science since it is unusable.

Don't expect the 'scientists' to recognize this anytime soon, though

You can quote me at your next seance. But I have pinged Chugbrew to your statement. I am sure you two have lots of sophomore philosophy to cover.

Every scientist is a philosopher first. The ones who cry the loudest about objectivity tend to be the ones who most eschew it, granting ample room for speculation for themselves while denying it to others.

There is no scientific distinction between, or definition of, "natural" and "supernatural." Otherwise, what is not supernatural about matter becoming self organized wholly apart from intelligence or design? If intelligent design is supernatural why don't we call your posts "miracles," since they, too, are a product of the same?

Except that 'science' is constantly advanced as a criterion that must be met in the natural vs supernatural debate.

This is simply irrational as you can't answer that question by willfully ignoring potential explanations (like creation) in favor of only natural explanations.

If you are, in fact, looking at a supernaturally-created biology and universe, you will never get the correct answer with such 'a priori' limitations.