You are in the right forum to argue the case that evolution et al (except for math and physics) are derived from the philosophy of naturalism and thus cannot form a complete picture and perhaps may even form deceptively erroneous pictures simply because they refuse to look.
Naturalism is a choice these disciplines of science make because they presume that anything that can be known will be physical or natural (methodological naturalism.)
It is a choice, a philosophy and nothing more. When a discipline declines to look at the non-spatial, non-temporal, non-corporeals (such as God, spirit, soul, conscience, mind, information or successful communication, autonomy, forms, geometry and other mathematical structures, qualia such as likes and dislikes) - it should not then be declaring that "all that exists" is all that it considers (microscope to telescope, matter in all its motions.)
And when that is the assertion it amounts to no more than a sleight of hand.
Give it a good thrashing right here on the Religion Forum! “All that there is” is not microscope to telescope.
After all, encouraging science to abandon the presupposition of "methodological naturalism" was the original goal of the intelligent design movement.
then science would no longer be science - it'd be philosophy and/or theology and/or navel-lint contemplation.
humanity already groans under a sufficient burden of those - there's no need to corrupt the viable alternative in order to please the vanity of masochists, is there?
[hiatus mode re-engaged]
And we've been utterly correct so far.
It is a choice, a philosophy and nothing more. When a discipline declines to look at the non-spatial, non-temporal, non-corporeals (such as God, spirit, soul, conscience, mind, information or successful communication, autonomy, forms, geometry and other mathematical structures, qualia such as likes and dislikes) - it should not then be declaring that "all that exists" is all that it considers (microscope to telescope, matter in all its motions.)
Show us your pixie, your leprechaun, your Invisible, Pink Unicorn; dazzle us with your repeatable and measurable phenomena and we will change our minds.
And when that is the assertion it amounts to no more than a sleight of hand.
That, unlike any other philosophical approach, yields repeatable and demonstrable results.
Give it a good thrashing right here on the Religion Forum! “All that there is” is not microscope to telescope.
See above on pixies - otherwise you are just babbling nonsense.
After all, encouraging science to abandon the presupposition of "methodological naturalism" was the original goal of the intelligent design movement.
Why is encouraging scientists to abandon the only guaranteed knowledge-producing process in the history of mankind is a good thing in your mind?
"Take heart! Opponents use spitwads when they have no ammunition left. LOL!"
Thanks Alamo-Girl, for being supportive when others wish to just look down their noses and put others down.
Thanks for the ping, A-G!