Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,15:06)|
|Another reason is that "Science is about what is testable, not necesarily what is naturalistic." (Chemist Dr. John Millam.) |
Even if you accept that, it should be clear the supernatural meddling of omnipotent entities is not testable by definition. Omnipotent means they can do anything, so there is no test that can distinguish between an infinite number of supernatural hypotheses.
Nothing in what you quoted from Meyers blather addresses this problem. Instead he constructs the straw man that "naturalism" excludes the possibility that life on earth was created or influenced by an intelligent agent. This is simply not true. There is currently no good evidence for such an influence, but if we started finding bits of biochem labs and space ships in pre-Cambrian strata, science would have no problem with that. No serious scientists are working on this kind of thing, not because it isn't allowed, but because 1) The current theory appears sufficient. 2) There is no evidence for such intervention.
Supernatural intervention is discarded only the purely pragmatic grounds that it can't be tested. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to come up with a method of making testable predictions about supernatural actions (which is probably impossible without redefining supernatural, but hey, that's your problem not ours)