Is Science Limited by Methodological Naturalism?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@T_aquaticus

In order to have conclusions you need a testable hypothesis and supporting empirical evidence. ID doesn’t have that.

@bjmiller just stumbled into four perfectly testable hypotheses:

@bjmiller

The constant regions also ensure the variable regions in the heavy and light chains reside at the right locations in close proximity.

@bjmiller

The abzyme only needs to stumble upon the correct amino acid sequences in the variable regions for the catalytic activity. The amino acids are already positioned properly by the constant regions, and the latter also provide the needed structural support. In addition, abyzmes do not morph their overall conformations to assist specific chemical reactions.

All four make clear empirical predictions. I’m ready and willing to test all of them. Do you think that the DI will give me a grant?

@Faizal_Ali

I would disagree, partially. The do have a testable hypothesis. And the empirical evidence refutes it.

I agree. There are lots of testable hypotheses. They don’t have the faith to look for the existing evidence that would put any of them to the test. Instead, they present hypotheses as facts.