Replies

"Correction: A Scientist doesn’t have that option. No Scientist can still be a Scientist and say “this physical phenomenon is best explained by supernatural agency”."

That's exactly correct and is exactly why a philosophical commitment to naturalism will ultimately produce 'an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated'.

Certain other posters say it better. "Science isn't interested in truth", they correctly say. Science is only interested in the philosophy of naturalism.

Now, if naturalism is not true but is purely philosophical; then those 'material explanations' are counter-intuitive because they are wrong.

Science, however, can *never* admit that and should never be proposed as the basis for understanding truth but recognized as a philosophical POV.

How successful has attributing physical phenomena to supernatural agency been when compared to attributing physical phenomena to predictable and natural means? It seems the entirety of the technological world we live in was derived from the latter not the former.

So no Scientist (thus all Scientists are “evolutionists” according to your definition) can explain a phenomenon by saying “Goddidit” and still be a Scientist, he has just become a theologian.

Certain other posters say it better. "Science isn't interested in truth", they correctly say. Science is only interested in the philosophy of naturalism.

Now, if naturalism is not true but is purely philosophical; then those 'material explanations' are counter-intuitive because they are wrong.

I suppose its my posts you are misrepresenting, as usual. Here is what science says about truth (and TRVTH):

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.

Note, it is not me saying that. That definition is from a CalTech website.

And I don't know why you creationists are so worried about science and the assumption of naturalism. If you think you can get better results using some other method, well go do it! Don't complain to us because our results contradict your a priori beliefs. If you want to disprove science and the assumptions it uses quit complaining and do some research. Or whatever it is you do.