What is your opinion on the scientist who admitted that science is committed to rigging the scientific method in order to exclude even having to consider supernatural phenomena? Isn't that a potential public relations nightmare for the scientific community? Doesn't that explicitly admit that there are scientists who purposely exclude supernatural causes as a foundation to deny the likelihood of Divinity?<quoted text>
Using all of the above?
Proves to 100%, that evolution is not only FACT, but that it began on earth BILLIONS of years in the past, with about 99% of the newest species only appearing since the last 500 million years ago.
More to the point?
DNA studies keep **confirming** these facts.
Evolution-- scientific evolution-- is fact.
There is no controversy. None at all-- in **science** circles.
Evolution is also **theory**(scientifically-spea king), which explains the **fact** of evolution.
To deny this?
Is to deny reality.
And reality does not care if you do not believe in it--
-- that is the nature OF reality.
There is **no** faith involved at all.
It just is.
That means that there are scientists who are purposely designing their experiments to exclude supernatural causes, so they can say there are no supernatural causes. Isn't this intellectually dishonest? I know you read my post, because you copied and pasted the first part, but didn't reply to the second part. Polymath attempted some damage control by saying that scientists improve their control measures so that people conducting research can't fake or falsify their findings. But that didn't address the explicit admission that secular science deliberately keeps supernatural phenomena out of the lab and out of all hypotheses so they don't even have to look at it.
I'm going to take a turn here from my usual mild-mannered methodology to a more aggressive nature aimed at the argument. Please do not take it personally, as none of it is directed at anyone here personally.
The scientist who admitted this is a respected Harvard professor of genetics. This is a person who knows the agenda driven world of secular science. Specifically, I will be looking for:
1) The no-true scotsman fallacy.
2) Special pleading.
3) Damage control that does not specifically address this scientist and his damning admission.
I'm not being hostile or personal. I'm just not going to let this one off the hook so easily.
So how, in light of this revelation as to the intellectual dishonesty and circular reasoning of some scientists, what are your opinions about his allegations?