Is true science Methodological Naturalism?

The following is a typical comment one hears from materialists when defining science:

If we think they originated as s supernatural event, outside the purview of science, then we cannot study the phenomenon. However, if we think they originated as the result of natural events,: chemistry, physics, and contingency, then we can study the matter and learn things in the process, even if we are wrong in our basic assumption.

This is bad reasoning based on either ignorance, mere incredulity or both.  It also precludes all  phenomena deemed as supra-natural from the “purview of science” a priori.

The 1st phrase implies that Newton, Pascal, Maxwell, and several 100s of other historically acclaimed scientists, that founded so-called “modern” science, could not have founded modern science! This is of course pure prejudice at work.
They were nevertheless virtually ALL staunch creationists who clearly believed the “originated as a supernatural event” view of life and the universe.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste, a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar Roger Bacon. Both predicted that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge–a result which followed.  Bacon especially enumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.

So the greatest scientists in past history, all creationists of some sort, did not believe the materialist definition of science!
How then can the atheists claim, as they ubiquitously do, that creationism or even mere intelligent design (which leaves the question of God and holy books out of the issues) will lead to the ruin of science when in fact all the great scientists that led us to where we are today were themselves creationists?! Utterly ridiculous.

I smell a rotten egg in the materialist mindset.

All across the world today we see fanatical Darwinian fundamentalist running around screaming that creationism would kill “real” science. Yet they never stop to explain how that would be possible given that the majority of historical scientists, including the inventors of the scientific method, were all creationists. Worse, the populations subjected to such fanaticism seem to be too dull to see through such an inane and perfectly illogical claim!

Therefore, how utterly ridiculous is any statement that implies they were in fact unscientific! Yet atheists do this all the time and the worst is that they often succeed in convincing others through the use of sophistry and a slight-of-hand conflating and equivocating of terms and definitions, as they do, to confuse those who do not want to think for themselves.

This is just another distortion promulgated in the new atheist propaganda, ubiquitous in the halls of academia these days and now forced as an a  priori qualification of all science!! So who gave them the right to define science anyway? No one.

The truth is that the origin of any phenomenon can be conceived of and therefore examined in some way -no matter what the perceived nature of that origin.
To say it cannot be is simply to claim that we do not have the right tools -yet, or worse, that we’re already assuming no such tools will ever exist.

Thus the materialist view assumes both too much and too little:
Too much of whatever “super-nature” really means.
Too little of how such could eventually be studied.
It lacks both imagination and realism, not to mention humility.

“Outside the purview of science”?
By this the atheist means outside of Methodological Naturalism. That much is clear, yet that much is also mere bias based on metaphysical assumptions about the universe and not on any factual necessity and that, to continue, is mere religion.

One can only laugh or cry that “science” has been defined in such a way as to deliberately interdict anything we don’t really understand yet! But that in itself is anti-science!

What is the purview of science, really?

Within this context let’s test the matter with the following question:

Suppose life really was designed by a or many intelligent being(s)?
Q: Could you, under your definition of  science, detect this?
A: If it cannot (as you claim) then it is lame, inefficient, insufficient and can never lead to the facts!

If “life, the  universe and everything” really was planned, designed and created, and your definition of science prohibits all but matter and energy then your science can never discover the truth that it was in fact designed!
In such a case your science is indefensibly and indeed irrationally exclusionary.

If your idea of science thus, a priori, excludes all possibility of any extra-, hyper- or supra- “natural” (as we understand natural) existences, then you’re applying a irrational limitation to your ability to understand origins – i.e. you’ve already shot yourself in the head and can never discover the fact.

In most cases materialists, that use this biased and indeed twisted version of science,  think they’ve shot their opponents in the head. In fact, they’ve merely debilitated their own prejudiced view of  science irrationally.  In not limiting the abilities of research to nothing but matter and energy, the true scientist, open to teleology,  has also left all possibilities open to discovery rather than forcing all discovery into a small box of materialist metaphysical dogma. The latter which purely religious and not scientific at all.

This methodological naturalism is a crippled  and prejudiced view of the “purview of science” as all the founders of modern science and indeed the scientific method (1st elaborated by creationists)

Here I cite Thaxton on the scientific method:

Method of Abductive Inference

Reasoning from experience and linking cause to effect developed over several centuries and became a recognized scientific method of causal inference. It has been a part of science since the Scientific Revolution, which culminated in the great synthesis of Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century. Over the course of the development of modern experimental science, Western culture learned to rely on sensory experience to gain knowledge about natural phenomena. By following experience scientists learned to infer causes from effects, i.e., to work backward from the character of the effects to the cause.

A cause is that necessary and sufficient condition that alone can give rise to the occurrence of a given event. And it does not matter if the cause is natural or intelligent. In the words of David Hume, who gave a formal analysis of this approach, “From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects.” (Emphasis his.) Later in the same book he added, “the same rule holds, whether the cause assigned be brute unconscious matter, or a rational intelligent being.”

The inferential methods we usually learn in school are deductive, i.e., inference from the general to the particular, and inductive, i.e., inference from the particular to the general. There has always been a third method of inference, though not clearly described and formally analyzed until the 1870s, this being abductive, i.e., inference from experience. The method of abductive inference is particularly important in the historical sciences, reasoning backward from phenomena to the cause.

This description of the scientific method is just and open and using such will allow scientists to discover and reason without the straitjacket restraints with which the materialist masters would enslave all scientific research.

It is in fact the abductive method that allows science to discover intelligent causes in any domain and not merely the domains of forensics.

I conclude with a quote from Werner Von Braun,

“While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. To be forced to believe only one conclusion–that everything in the universe happened by chance –would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”
“The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction.” “It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom.” -Werner Von Braun, Ph.D., the father of the NASA space Program, in an open letter to the California State Board of Education on September 14, 1972.