An alternate look at Naturalism

Again you are fixing the rules in advance. You demand objective evidence when, by its nature (unfortunate or ironic word but can't think of another right now) what we describe as supernatural is not objectively evident. Physical things are objectively evident - you can touch them, measure them, weigh them, etc. Mind is not in that category of measurable things. You can't, for example, set up a lab experiment with a "supernatural agent" and watch while it designs something (that's a facetious example but you get the gist, I'm sure).

Except the claim is that the supernatural agent can affect the natural world, so there has to be some kind of nexus or interface. That should be observable.

Have you considered that RM+NS might be a convenient explanation but it does not offer proof? You might be able to show that something could have evolved that way but does that mean it did? Meyer talks about "inference to the best explanation" which is another way of saying he can't prove design but it may be the best explanation. Would you claim that neo-darwinian explanations amount to proof or inference? Maybe it is the best explanation if you fix the rules by prohibiting intelligence or teleology before you start looking for evidence. Certainly then, NS+RM will look like the only candidate (or maybe not even then, according to the Third Way folks).

So let's allow teleology. Now what? It's vapid, fruitless. I'm not even sure you could describe how it might work.

So there is this invisible intelligence that affects genes.

How?

It skews the random mutations every now and again.

How? What is the mechanism by which an invisible intelligence makes randomness nonrandom?


Where do we go from there? If there is no path forward, scientists will simply ignore the idea and keep working. They will not be swayed by some argument that the ID+NS theory is somehow a better explanation than RM+NS, because there is no explanation.

~~ Paul