No. If Naturalism runs into a wall, I simply do not ignore the wall, or assume
"Someday, there will be no wall."
I ask, instead, Who could have built this wall? This seems much more logical
and an exercise of common sense.
<<And supernaturalistic rules require that where science has not offered a
reasonable explanation for a phenomenon, the only other possible thing to
consider is a supernatural explanation.>>
This is incorrect. It should read: "...where science has not offered a
reasonable explanation for a phenomenon [and everything we know thus far
frustrates naturalistic possibilities...it is bias to eliminate a supernatural
explanation]."
<< If you want to claim that you have a
more realistic outlook of the world, then you need to be prepared to
consider naturalistic as well as supernaturalistic explanations. The fact
that you don't buy what Darwinists claim, does not mean that the logical
alternative is, therefore, a supernatural explanation. This position means
that your mind is closed to the possibility of any naturalistic explanation.>>
Nah. I am perfectly willing to consider naturalistic scenarios in keeping with
the evidence. What Naturalists do, however, is REFUSE to entertain the
alternative **by definition***. This is not only bias, it is stark bias.
Whose mind is closed?
For example, if we have NO testable, experimental data supporting the chance
formation of complex biochemical systems, should we close our minds to the
possibility of suernatural design?
Perhaps you can explain why we should.
<<There are numerous examples of persisting scientific dogma in the absence of
convincing data. Sometimes the science has been proven wrong, which means
that the scientific process functions well. >>
This ignores the laws/causality distinction. In the former case, it "functions
well." In the latter case, it does not when it closes its Naturalistic doors.
Once again, Naturalism "defines to exclude." Supernaturalism does not. It
merely says, in effect, "Why assume Naturalistic explanations when the
evidence does not remotely suggest it?"
Jim