But science must affirm methodological uniformity regarding the uniformity of natural laws for obvious reasons.
This is not a universal principle, contrary to your misunderstanding.
Evolution isn't uniform at all. Most of the time there is random proliferation of diversity in a species with low selective pressures and little evolutionary progress. Most evolutionary progress takes place during catastrophic events. It is much like the way rivers change their course. It isn't gradual, it happens only during floods.
IOW's it can't embrace the traditional concept of miracles put for by hume
Hume denied the existence of any miracles. Once again you are making a
false connection between
Hume and
science, which you so vociferously denied having done in another thread (and then insulted me for making this claim about you that you just repeated).
Prediction is the heart of the scientific method, and predictions are based on patterns inferred through observation.
Thomas Kuhn distingushed "ordinary" science from "revolutionary" science, and you are describing
ordinary science exclusively. These things play no role in
revolutionary science that actually leads to new discoveries, the real core of science. Not that ordinary science isn't important, but on it's own it is utterly useless.
But science can never embrace a supernatural addition to natural providence.
Then why hasn't this prevented scientists from studying the Shroud of Turin and coming to the conclusion that there is a high likelihood it is authentic?
Now the Bible, interestingly, is a book about a God of miracles (The true God.). It is a book that teaches and preaches theism from beginning to end—the concept that God not only created the universe but intervenes in it from time to time.
Now to counter this, the OP made the statement that God doesn't do miracles (non-uniform acts) unless there was human to witness it.
This is not accurate. I stated that God does everything for a purpose and that since He has no needs,
most of those purposes are for us. This in no way precludes the possibility of preperation work done well before the birth of the people it is done for. So once again, Calminian's characterization of my views is distorted.
A theological argument to be sure, but one that can't be supported by the Bible.
No wonder since you made it up out of your own imagination.
Regardless, the affirmation of historical supernatural acts of God which transcend science do cause a problem for science in some areas.
Robert B. Fischer, President of the American Scientific Affiliation and Dean of the School of Science and Mathematics, California State College, states, “Nature is rational in the sense that nature is consistent and uniform in total cause-effect relationships.” And for the most part this presupposition is true. Yet the Bible speaks of a God that transcends this uniformity and actually overrides it at times.
God is part of cause and effect too. In Hinduism God is sometimes called the Great Cause. The supposed distinction between God and cause and effect is meaningless.
Thus we have a small problem. While this scientific assumption is true most of the time, and for that matter the vast majority of the time, it's not always true. There are exceptions. Miracles do exist.
How many have you experienced? Miracles are mostly personal experiences. Not all the time of course, I can describe several that weren't, but the first kind of miracle most people are going to experience is a personal experience.
Now science is very valuable for the fact the uniformity of the laws of nature are true the vast majority of the time. But, if we believe the Genesis account of creation, we know this is for certain one area where this scientific presupposition was not true.
If that is so then there should be a consistent pattern of Biblical passages after Gen 5 that contradict science. But you read the OP already, so clearly you have ZERO examples to offer.
.
