Why are evolutionists such hypocrites?

H. Happy to say, "So that's what what you were saying! Finally, I understand!"Stephen

P.This definition, begs the question that we are addressing, namely, "do we have a scientific methodology that will allow us to determine whether supernatural causes are behind what we can observe with our senses?" H-D methodology says yes. It makes no presuppositions about what the truth actually may be. It only says that, whatever hypothesis you come up with, if it makes predictions about what happens in the sensed world, it can be studied scientifically. That's why H-D methodology is better. It gets at the truth without any limitation as to what the truth may be. MN, as you have defined it here, says that it can only address non-supernatural hypotheses. Or am I missing something?Stephen

quote:

---

Methodological naturalism is merely the belief that natural causes are behind all we can observe with our senses, and that its inner workings are amenable to decipherment through methodological investigation.

---

Actually, the "belief" part in this definition doesn't have to be there at all.The reason the scientific community has settled on methodological naturalism as the method of choice is because it tends to be very reliable, productive, and helps avoid the pitfalls in other methods.When methodological naturalism is left behind, irrefutable explanations inevitably come to the fore, as we've seen with Steve over and over again.Yes, of course methodological naturalism limits the scope of inquiry, but this limit is conducive to moving research forward. What Steve is describing as his method seems to keep him stuck in the dreaming, "what if pink unicorns are the source of all dryer lint" phase.

Why are evolutionist such hypocrites? I believe some evolutionist are hypocrites because someone who believes in the ToE

Thanks.

I'm not sure I agree 100% with either side of this argument
at the moment.If one discounts a whole area of possible causation, then
one introduces the possibility of assigning the wrong
cause to the witnessed effect.If, on the other hand, one suggests possible causation that
cannot even be investigated one can impede the progression
of knowledge.Take demons as an example of a possible causation. Whether you
find the idea plausable or not is irrelevant.IFF one could provide specific predictions that could ONLY
be the result of demonic activity, and then test those
predictions -- would that be scientific or not?If the opinion is that a demon could do anything, then that
is definitely non-refutable and so no further progress
can be made.