Supernaturalism: Does It Work?

We hear a lot how the 'religion of naturalism' is unquestionably accepted, favored by school textbooks and popular science literature, and subsidized by billions of dollars of research grants. Scientific bias, creationists say, is the only thing keeping their 'theory' from being recognized as a valid scientific alternative to standard materialistic scientific methodology.As many have pointed out, however, the mere fact you are reading this on a computer is testament to the success of standard naturalistic scientific progress. Creationists have to prove that their methodology has produced significant successes in scientific research to accuse naturalists of bias.Are there any examples of supernatural factors being discovered by science? Has the assumption that extramaterial forces exist ever been successful in guiding research into the causes of natural phenomena?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

It's not a trick question. I'm asserting that science has discovered material, natural, testable, verifiable mechanisms responsible for such things as heredity, fermentation, embryology, the weather, movement of celestial bodies, adaptation of organisms to their environment, etc. Perhaps science is only capable of discovering material mechanisms for natural phenomena. This is the point of methodological naturalism, that only verifiable, testable mechanisms have ever proved relevant to science. Some have voiced their opinion that this is 'dogma,' despite the demonstrable success of this methodology.That said, I want anyone who accuses scientists of a 'naturalistic bias' to tell us whether supernatural mechanisms exist, and whether science has ever benefitted from acknowledging them.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I'm not saying that science's insistence on including only verifiable, testable mechanisms isn't an assumption. But is it a valid assumption? Has it proved successful in expanding our knowledge?On the other hand, you seem to want the supernatural included in scientific methodology for no good reason. Does your methodology work? If I can point to a natural, material mechanism for a natural phenomenon, isn't your proposed supernatural mechanism simply unnecessary?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

MEH states:

quote:

---

I would submit that not limiting science to a paradigm which limits how far they can consider an option in the universe preferable to one that removes anything "supernatural" from the equation

---

Quit avoiding the question. I know you feel science has been limited and constrained by its inability to use supernatural mechanisms, and I've already pointed out that science (through research conducted by people of various philosophical or religious backgrounds) seems to have done quite well despite the stranglehold of methodological naturalism.You have yet to give me one example of scientific progress resulting from the use of supernatural factors, or by scrapping its reliance on verifiable and testable mechanisms. Once again, does your methodology work?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

MEH,Before, you said you thought science was being unfairly constrained by a reliance on 'natural' mechanisms. Now you say there's no difference between 'natural' and 'supernatural.' I don't care what you call it, if it's verifiable and testable, it can be considered relevant to scientific inquiry.The problem is that you seem to espouse a particularly vague strain of intelligent design creationism I call Magic Happy Love Science. According to this hypothesis (I use the term loosely), anything whatsoever can be attributed to the purposeful intelligence of a nebulous invisible being whose works may not ostensibly demonstrate either purpose or intelligence. Even calling this notion a concept is giving it too much credit.I'd like to know how this notion could conceivably contribute anything worthwhile to scientific endeavor.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

MEH says:

quote:

---

I am confused, because you said in your last post that MN does not exclude intelligent design, but Mammuthus says that it does.

---

MN doesn't exclude intelligent design by definition, but it has done so in effect, because the notion of a supernatural entity appears to be outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Mammuthus is reminding us that science works with testable hypotheses, and intelligent design creationism hasn't been able to formulate one.If you're amazed by the complexity of our universe, join the club. If you choose to attribute this dazzling complexity to an intelligent designer, that's your philosophical position. All we're saying is that it doesn't seem necessary to believe in the existence of this purposeful intelligence to have a mature understanding of scientific reality. You haven't shown us how this belief is justified by science, or what is lacking in materialistic methodology that demands the inclusion of supernatural entities.Methodological naturalism seems to work just fine, and intelligent design hasn't added anything to our understanding of the universe.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

We've heard a lot about bias in science, and you've asserted that philosophical assumptions are at the root of science's sticking to a naturalistic methodology. I'm saying that the naturalistic assumption is a valid one, considering the success of the methodology. So far you haven't presented us with any successful research that depends on supernatural factors.It's obvious that the naturalistic methodology that science favors is not the result of atheism run amok. I've repeatedly presented Newton and Pasteur as examples of believers who effected revolutionary scientific breakthroughs by proposing testable, natural mechanisms for natural phenomena. Biologists like Kenneth Miller and Terry Gray are devout believers whose research testifies to the universality and objectivity of science's naturalistic methodology.Therefore, it's simply not true that the philosophy behind science is more important than the results obtained through the methodology.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Peter,Either way the creationists are stuck:1) The supernatural can't be empirically detected and thus it's meaningless in a scientific context.2) The supernatural can be detected but science just hasn't done it yet.I think that's the range of choices. With which do the people claiming science is biased agree?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall