Rob writes:
As I said in the Op: I think that some of you have simply moved past the evidence and take for granted that it is possible based upon your 'methodological naturalist' bias.
What do you find so odd, Rob, about scientists looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and assuming the likelihood of such explanations? Considering the experience of the last few centuries, when loads of natural explanations for natural phenomena have proven to be true, and very useful in advancing human knowledge, and absolutely no non-natural, unnatural, or supernatural explanations have proven to be either true or useful to anyone for anything, then isn't it reasonable that they should take this approach?
Methodological naturalism is not some grand philosophy (that would be metaphysical naturalism). It's just plain common sense.
And a related point. As you claim to believe in an undesigned reality, why do you want scientists, who study material reality, to consider design when it comes to the origin of life? And what does considering design mean?
Should they sit in their laboratories for four hours each day meditating on invisible, inaudible intelligent designers, and then spend the other four hours doing real science based on natural explanations of natural things? Do you think anything practical would be achieved by such an approach?
™ Version 4.2
