yep. we have many cases of suppose “pseudogene” with known function.
There are the philosophical naturalists, of course, who are members of the cult of scientism and believe that nature and the material is all that there is.
Of course … so how does the practise of science as methodological naturalism work out as different from philosophical naturalism?
If scientists are not willing to/unable to define the boundaries of what science can and cannot investigate and comment upon, then it’s the same as philosophical naturalism in reality.
There are Christians who are scientists 
, and not all scientists who aren’t Christians necessarily believe that there isn’t any true knowledge outside of science.
2 Likes
I am talking about the system of methodological naturalism, not particular individuals.
One example would be that , everyone who lives in and is part of a communist state need not be communist. However, the political/economical system is.
I am not sure methodological naturalism is neutral on God.
Philosophical naturalists, aka atheists, believing in scientism, fantasize that science will eventually figure everything out. They have faith.
Isn’t that faith important to be a good scientist?
Can you give us a for instance where it is not?
1 Like
What? Are you saying you aren’t convinced birds and crocs are archosaurs?
I have… it doesn’t give scientist any option other than assuming the cause is “natural”… so a good scientist cannot theorise that the first life was created by God, or that the universe was…
They have to look for natural causes.
How is this neutral?
Give him a chance to think. He’s making this up as he goes along. 
1 Like
Not really. Christians, speaking of for instances, are willing to accept big bang cosmology as evidence (not ‘scientific’ evidence, mind you) for the existence of God, and that there are limits beyond which we may not be able to plumb.
Christians yes… Scientist no… that’s why it cannot be classified as scientific evidence.
How is it science otherwise?
You can’t postulate an immaterial cause and do any science with that.
if methodological naturalism defines science and methodology naturalism is not neutral on the subject of God…
Neither is science.
Do you think science has to be neutral on God by necessity? If so, that’s only lip service.
(Scientists don’t, but science does.)
2 Likes
There is no such necessity… unless it is a legal requirement…
In such cases, it will be a neutrality that is confessed but impossible to actually practise.
Then you can’t explain why multiple sorts of data create a tree with that branch. You can’t just ignore that branch by putting an X on it.
Yes, if by “otherwise” you mean “convincing enough”. There’s plenty of molecular data, which you could easily discover with a simple Google search. But I also deny that the fossil data should not be convincing. Why not?
Yes. And by, among other things, similar means. That’s what SINE insertions are.
3 Likes