quote:
The irony that Meert doesn't understand is that on one hand he is saying that Creationists start with the conclusion that God Created all we see and conduct science from that viewpoint. It worked for Newton, Kepler et al....
Where in Newton's laws or Keplers orbital models did they insert God? What part of their science relies on the existence of God?
You are confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism, two different positions. The former denies the existence of God while the latter excludes the undetectable activity of God in the natural world.
quote:
On the other hand Meert is saying that it is OK to start and work under the conclusion that nature is all there is and science should be conducted accordingly.
Nope, Meert and all of science work under the conclusion that natural phenomena have a natural mechanism. This in no way excludes the existence of a diety.
quote:
IOW if life was designed (or Created) [ we know life exists, so either it was the result of purely natural processes or it wasn't] then it is an injustice not only to science but all of mankind to pidgeon-hole all research to one and only one conclusion. That is leading the evidence and goes against what Meert says real science should be.
It is an injustice to force a supernatural explanation into a gap in our knowledge concerning the natural world. Science is about objectively measuring nature, not subjectively and arbitrarily assigning design where it best fits a religious presupposition. Evolutionary mechanisms are the only observed mechanisms to cause changes within populations, no other mechanism has ever been observed. Why shouldn't science stay with what is observed, and ignore hypotheses about things which are unseen and untestable? If science were allowed to use theories that are untestable and use evidence which is not observed, where would we get? Newton and Kepler were able to understand this, and so should you.
™ Version 4.2