Be specific, instead of merely engaging in handwaving. Provide a specific example of "Intelligent Design" that is not explained by observed natural phenomena such as gravity or natural selection.Within and all around us.
If scientific theories, which are explanations, are not "real", then why are they effective in making predictions?
So you're saying that science is just one big conspiracy, and that scientific theories are incapable of predicting future observations?Most of the time, scientists know what results they want, and that alone can influence the results they get.
What would a "non-natural" cause look like? How would it appear different from a natural cause?
If thought is not physical in nature, how does it "manifest constructs that are physically perceptible"?(And you didn't answer my question: What would a "non-natural" cause look like, and how would it appear different from a natural cause?)What does thought look like? While it can manifest constructs that are physically perceptible, thought itself is not physical in nature.
Now you're engaged in a straw man argument, since the modern evolutionary synthesis does not exclude the ideas of cooperation within species and between species. It is pointless for you to argue only against Darwin himself. You are many years too late.
Computer simulations of mutations show that mutations leading to cooperation will result in more success than those that don't.Exactly how do genetic mutations, or neo-Darwinian synthesis, demonstate cooperation among the various species?
How is it "contradictory"? That's like saying that a pool of water can't be wet because the individual water molecules are not wet. You're engaged in a Fallacy of Composition, in this case that because components of living things are not living, then we should not expect the composition to be living. That, of course, is nonsensical. We observe around us that complex things have features that are not features of the components.The idea of natural selection is flawed in and of itself and presents a conundrum for science. Ruling out any question of a design, a planner, or a God behind "living" matter, leaves unexplained the same question relative to the structure of "nonliving" matter, which obviously preceded life. How is it that as living creatures we are made up of ingredients - atoms of iron, molecules of water for instance, from a supposedly dead world? In the scientific view we are utterly dependent upon this contradictory situation.
You mean, like the ones listed here?And while I am on the subject of scientific conundrums, where are all the remnants of those creatures that linked birds, reptiles, cats, monkeys and human beings?
Science makes no claim that a god does not exist. So I don't see your point.
That's because science uses methodological naturalism. That means that it doesn't include supernatural entities in its models. Why should it? More to the point,*how* could it?Science doesn't have to make that claim when there are no scientific models of the universe where divinity is either required, productive, or useful.
Science necessarily employs methodological naturalism. It makes no statement about nature being "all there is".
As opposed to what *other* "reality?By focusing on the external reality exclusively, science makes its particular bias more than obvious.
Such as?Science seeks mechanisms, not meanings. Human experiences that don't fit the scientific picture of reality are simply excluded.