Naturalistic science will miss a supernatural explanation

From EvoWiki

Contents 1 Claim 2 Source 3 Responses 4 Fallacies contained in this claim 5 External Links 6 Related claims 7 See Also 8 Acknowledgments

Claim

If the correct explanation for a phenomenon happens to be supernatural, the naturalistic method of science will miss it. "With creationist explanations disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative."

Source

• Johnson, Phillip E., 1990 (Oct.). Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. First Things. [1]

Responses

1. Naturalistic methods of investigation are, indeed, poorly suited to identifying supernatural truths. However, it is not clear that this matters. It is a curious fact that of all of those persons who argue that what might be termed "supernaturalistic science" is superior to naturalistic methodology, not one actually behaves as if they truly do think supernatural explanations are superior to naturalistic explanations. Example: When faced with a car that doesn't run, every one of the boosters of "supernaturalistic science" gives their vehicle over into the care of a mundane mechanic, as opposed to sending it to a priest who can identify and exorcise the evil spirits that have infested the machinery.
2. Supernatural explanations are, by definition, outside the reach of science. If there is a supernatural explanation, it fails the Occam's Razor test because it will have to assume the existence of an entire extrasensory realm and should not even be considered if there is no reasonable naturalistic explanation (because that would be an Appeal to Ignorance). Supernatural explanations inherently lack parsimony, which is one of primary measures of the excellence of a scientific theory.
3. It is equally curious that not one booster of "supernaturalistic science" can answer this simple question: Exactly what is it that a "supernaturalistic" scientist would do differently than a conventional, naturalistic scientist?
4. The phrase "supernatural explanation" violates the definitions of the two words, since "supernatural" is synonymous with "unexplained"
5. Though creationists claim this as if it's a serious point, none of them have ever actually provided a single irrefutable example of such a phenomenon. There is therefore some question as to whether such phenomena even exist, with all known evidence suggesting that they do not.
6. If supernatural ideas could be considered scientific, then pretty much every outlandish idea could be included in the realm of science.
7. If 'supernatural' evidence was testable by science, that evidence would be natural, and not supernatural.
8. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

• Untestability (how to find out which supernatural explanation is the right one?)
• Just So Story (explanation proposed without any evidence of it being true)
• Arcane Explanation (supernatural explanations rely on entities or forces for which there is no evidence)

External Links

• Mark Isaak's page for this claim [2]
• CreationWiki's comments [3]

Related claims

• Evolutionists interpret evidence based on their preconceptions
• Science is naturalistic
• Science's method rules out design

See Also

• Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments

• Cubist