Hi, I'm taking a Philosophy class.....

[JAL]

Oh, and by the way, can we really falsify the idea of intelligent life existing in outer space? No, because there may be life forms that hide themselves from us. But does that it make unscientific to look for empirical evidence of intelligent life? Are we to deem this "religious" or "untestable"? No.

Part of the problem is that you define God as "supernatural" and then you use that term to conveniently shove your desired wedge between religion and science. I don't define God that way. In my opinion He is just like any human life form, only a bit more intelligent (merely due to being a lot older). This is not entirely your fault - orthodox Christianity always assumed that God was "supernatural" (e.g. immaterial), but I disagree. Our bodies are machines, as I see it, and just like a watch, they indicate evidence of design, a regular, human-like manufacturer. Is this an absolute proof? No. But I haven't seen an absolute proof of evolutionism to date. Both theories have their weaknesses, and hence both theories require faith.

 

[Ondoher]

What scientific use is the theory of creation? Part of what scientists do today, as far as I know, is break down species into categories. I believe this is called taxonomy. This didn't begin with Charles Darwin. Aristotle was already doing that thousands of years ago. Evolutionism can actually be a hindrance to science because a scientist can become so obsessed with proving evolution and identifying transitions/transitoinal forms that other aspects of science can be neglected. If you want classify species in taxa, fine. If you want to study genetics, fine. I don't see why one has to be an evolutionist to do this.

Taxonomy is made more sensible by evolution. The science of cladistics, which is the basis of modern taxonomy, is made stronger by our understanding of common ancestry.

You stated that if you found a machine on a distant planet, you wouldn't consider this evidence of intelligent life. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. I'm not calling you a liar, the reality is that you've probably convinced yourself of this on account of an emotional hostility to my position.

I have no emotional hostility towards your position. I see no reason to become emotionally invested in any position, given how often I am wrong. However, unless the manufacturing processes were ones we understand are used by humans (rivets, welding, metalurgy, plastics, etc.) we'd have no reason to conclude that an artifact was manufactured. It would really depend on how alien the object was.

But even if it were true of you, I don't think the body of scientists at large would agree with you. Once they had ruled out that the machine came from a human, they would generally consider it to be at least preliminary evidence of intelligent life. So my argument stands, namely, that is a thoroughly scientific conclusion that intelligent life stands behind any machine (such as the human body).

I said it before, I'll say it again. Intelligent design is not science. It cannot be falsified. There is no hypothetical observation that would be inconsistent with the notion of an intelligent designer.

 

[Ondoher]

Oh, and by the way, can we really falsify the idea of intelligent life existing in outer space? No, because there may be life forms that hide themselves from us. But does that it make unscientific to look for empirical evidence of intelligent life? Are we to deem this "religious" or "untestable"? No.

There is a lot of debate about whether things like SETI are science. It would be hard to falsify the notion that extraterrestrial intelligence exists. However, as it does not rely on any supernatural explanations, and because a signal could be determined to be from an intelligent source, the search itself is generally well regarded as sound, and the hypothesis granted as science.

Part of the problem is that you define God as "supernatural" and then you use that term to conveniently shove your desired wedge between religion and science. I don't define God that way. In my opinion He is just like any human life form, only a bit more intelligent (merely due to being a lot older). This is not entirely your fault - orthodox Christianity always assumed that God was "supernatural" (e.g. immaterial), but I disagree. Our bodies are machines, as I see it, and just like a watch, they indicate evidence of design, a regular, human-like manufacturer.

Actually, life looks like the product of evolution. Darwin defeated Paley about 150 years ago. Again, we recognize a watch because we know what manufactured items look like, we recognize the tell tale signs of human activity.

Is this an absolute proof? No. But I haven't seen an absolute proof of evolutionism to date. Both theories have their weaknesses, and hence both theories require faith.

Science does not offer proof, it offers levels of certainty. No scientific theory requires faith, it requires an understainding of the facts and arguments and provisional acceptance if the argument warrents it.

Intelligent Design does not fit the defintion of science or scientific theory.

 

[JAL]

Intelligent design is not science. It cannot be falsified. There is no hypothetical observation that would be inconsistent with the notion of an intelligent designer.

So what you're saying is that if you were overseeing a manned mission to mars, and a machine was found there, you would command the fleet to refrain from looking for intelligent life in the vincinity, because this would be unscientific, or, to use your words, "Intelligent design is not science. It cannot be falsified." And I suppose, since you are only concerned with science, that upon your return to earth, you would never mention this machine to your superiors?

I don't think so. I think you'd give it a bit more attention. The question, then, is why? Intelligent design is not falsifiable, so why does it matter? Look, what's the point of insisting upon evolution anyway that is so advantageous? Either creationism or evolution can postulate a common ancestor (I elsewhere speculated that God could have hand-fashioned all species from a single cluster of genetic material and thus from a common ancestor).

You seem to assume that the major criterion of a scientific theory is whether it is falsifiable. What about the criterion as to whether a verifiable theory has any great value? That is to say, even if we could verify that there was a common ancestor, where does that really get us? Sure it's falsifiable, but does that mean we need to waste our time with it? It seems to me that studying and applying genetics is important, but proving that that we have a common ancestor is not all that important. So while many claim that religion has no importance for science, I think they have bought into a lie that evolution is critical for science, that science cannot advance without it.

 

[JAL]

Science does not offer proof, it offers levels of certainty. No scientific theory requires faith, it requires an understainding of the facts and arguments and provisional acceptance if the argument warrents it.

Intelligent Design does not fit the defintion of science or scientific theory.

You dogmatically insist upon a false dichotomy. Yes, scientific theory requires faith to believe it because, as you just admitted, its conclusions are not proven. You can deny this until the cows come home, but we will have to agree to disagree. As I have said, the human body, gravity (and the other 7 invisible "forces"), and Nature at large count as FORENSIC evidence of God's existence. Is the evidence apodictic? No. Therefore some faith is required to assent. In exactly the same way, evolutionists put forth their own forensic evidence. Is the evidence apodictic? No. Therefore some faith is required to assent. No matter how much you try to deny this obvious parallelism, you are only fooling yourself - and, in doing so, you unconvincingly classify men such as Isaac Newton as "unscientific." He saw gravity as forensic evidence for God's existence. So there is little you can do to convert me to your false assumption/dichotomy that creationism is unscientific.

 

[Ondoher]

So what you're saying is that if you were overseeing a manned mission to mars, and a machine was found there, you would command the fleet to refrain from looking for intelligent life in the vincinity, because this would be unscientific, or, to use your words, "Intelligent design is not science. It cannot be falsified." And I suppose, since you are only concerned with science, that upon your return to earth, you would never mention this machine to your superiors?

By saying "machine" you are making certain assumptions about what this artifact would look like. If this looked like something we recognized as a machine, with certain manufacturing techniques and materials that were analogous to those used by humans, then of course we'd assume there was something somewhere that made it. However, what if it was a gelatenous ball of glowing goo. Or a wisp of gas with strange magnetic properties. If we recognize the kinds of manufacturing techniques we know humans use, then we'd naturally extend this to an alien civilization. This is what SETI does. However, if it were so alien that we did not recognize it, we'd have no reason to assume it was manufactured.

I don't think so. I think you'd give it a bit more attention. The question, then, is why? Intelligent design is not falsifiable, so why does it matter?

If you cannot falsify your explanation, then you have no way to test it. All possible observations are consistent. This is not science.

Look, what's the point of insisting upon evolution anyway that is so advantageous? Either creationism or evolution can postulate a common ancestor (I elsewhere speculated that God could have hand-fashioned all species from a single cluster of genetic material and thus from a common ancestor).

Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy of species. What you are describing is a single common ancestor from which all extant species directly descend. This is not what the evidence shows, this is not what taxonomy reveals.

You seem to assume that the major criterion of a scientific theory is whether it is falsifiable. What about the criterion as to whether a verifiable theory has any great value? That is to say, even if we could verify that there was a common ancestor, where does that really get us? Sure it's falsifiable, but does that mean we need to waste our time with it? It seems to me that studying and applying genetics is important, but proving that that we have a common ancestor is not all that important. So while many claim that religion has no importance for science, I think they have bought into a lie that evolution is critical for science, that science cannot advance without it.

Evolution is the glue that ties together the various disparate facts about biology. It is the explanation that makes it all make sense. In terms of why is the study of evolution important, I will let this white paper on the subject do the talking: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.pdf

Here is an exerpt:

Evolutionary biology provides the key to understanding the principles governing the origin and extinction of species. It provides causal explanations, based on history and on processes of genetic change and adaptation, for the full sweep of biological phenomena, ranging from the molecular to the ecological. Thus, evolutionary biology allows us to determine not only how and why organisms have become the way they are, but also what processes are currently acting to modify or change them.
Response to change is a feature of evolution that is becoming increasingly important in terms of scientific input into societal issues. We live in a world that is undergoing constant change on many levels, and much of that change is a direct consequence of human activity. Evolutionary biology can contribute explicitly to enhanced awareness and prediction of mid and long term consequences of environmental disturbances, whether they be deforestation, application of pesticides, or global warming.

Distinctive perspectives on biology offered by evolutionary biology include emphasis on the interplay between chance and adaptation as conflicting agents of biological change, on variation as an inherent feature of biological systems, and on the importance of biological diversity. Variation is a key concept, since evolutionary change ultimately depends on the differential success of competing genetic lineages. The ultimate consequence of variation and evolutionary divergence is biological diversity.

Biological species are not fixed entities, but rather are subject to ongoing modification through chance or adaptation. Understanding why and how some species are able to change apace with new environmental challenges is critical to the sustainability of human endeavor.

 

[Ondoher]

You dogmatically insist upon a false dichotomy. Yes, scientific theory requires faith to believe it because, as you just admitted, its conclusions are not proven.

It does not take faith to provisionally accept a well supported conclusion. Also, I fail to see a dichotomy, let alone a false one.

You can deny this until the cows come home, but we will have to agree to disagree. As I have said, the human body, gravity (and the other 7 invisible "forces"), and Nature at large count as FORENSIC evidence of God's existence. Is the evidence apodictic? No. Therefore some faith is required to assent. In exactly the same way, evolutionists put forth their own forensic evidence. Is the evidence apodictic? No. Therefore some faith is required to assent. No matter how much you try to deny this obvious parallelism, you are only fooling yourself - and, in doing so, you unconvincingly classify men such as Isaac Newton as "unscientific." He saw gravity as forensic evidence for God's existence. So there is little you can do to convert me to your false assumption/dichotomy that creationism is unscientific.

I agree that evidence exists, the question is one of methods of interpretation. I happen to like the scientific method. When it comes to the scientific method, one criteria is that your hypothesis has to make testable predictions. Creationism does not meet this criteria and is therefore immediately out of the running.

 

[JAL]

By saying "machine" you are making certain assumptions about what this artifact would look like. If this looked like something we recognized as a machine, with certain manufacturing techniques and materials that were analogous to those used by humans, then of course we'd assume there was something somewhere that made it.

I'm not sure that appearance is the only issue here. Functionality has a lot to do with it. Physiologists classify organisms in much the same way machines are classified. For example a car has a cooling system. Physiologists recognize that the human body has a cooling system. If you see the car, and call it a machine, and then deny machinery of the human body, I would call it inconsistent. So yes, a gelatenous lump of goo, if studied, should be called a machine if it shows evidence of a cooling system. Similarly, we would look for a propulsion system as seen in the car. All this is evidence of machinery. Apodictic evidence? Perhaps not. But I don't claim to have an apodictic posiition. And I don't like it when evolutionists so claim, either.

 

[Ondoher]

I'm not sure that appearance is the only issue here. Functionality has a lot to do with it. Physiologists classify organisms in much the same way machines are classified. For example a car has a cooling system. Physiologists recognize that the human body has a cooling system. If you see the car, and call it a machine, and then deny machinery of the human body, I would call it inconsistent. So yes, a gelatenous lump of goo, if studied, should be called a machine if it shows evidence of a cooling system. Similarly, we would look for a propulsion system as seen in the car. All this is evidence of machinery. Apodictic evidence? Perhaps not. But I don't claim to have an apodictic posiition. And I don't like it when evolutionists so claim, either.

Actually, I specifically meant appearance. We know what things look like when we manufacture them, it is no big leap to extend those behaviors and methods to an alien being. It is a leap to conclude anything, even if it appears to have purpose, is the result of intelligence, unless you happen to discover the intelligence at work.

 

[JAL]

I agree that evidence exists, the question is one of methods of interpretation. I happen to like the scientific method. When it comes to the scientific method, one criteria is that your hypothesis has to make testable predictions. Creationism does not meet this criteria and is therefore immediately out of the running.

What you are implying, inadvertently, is that forensics is not science. Forensics is not an absolute proof, but it's still science, and it puts people in jail. Is gravity testable? Is it scientific? Yes. Isaac Newton took this as forensic evidence of God's existence.

I think you might be confounding "evidence" with "inference." The inference that God exists, is it testible? Well, in one sense no, right? Because WE DO NOT SEE HIM (actually I would have to qualify that, but here is not the place). Now what about the inference that we have a common ancestor? Is that testible? In other words, can we see it? I don't think so, because if it once existed, it has decayed. In both cases, whether evolution or creationism, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO BELIEVE IN THE INVISIBLE. That's why I say it requires faith.

You say creationism cannot be tested. Oh, but it can - not the INFERENCE (that God exists) but the EVIDENCE (such as gravity). The same is true of evolution. Here again, I see false dichotomies.

 

[Ondoher]

What you are implying, inadvertently, is that forensics is not science. Forensics is not an absolute proof, but it's still science, and it puts people in jail. Is gravity testable? Is it scientific? Yes. Isaac Newton took this as forensic evidence of God's existence.

I think you might be confounding "evidence" with "inference." The inference that God exists, is it testible? Well, in one sense no, right? Because WE DO NOT SEE HIM (actually I would have to qualify that, but here is not the place). Now what about the inference that we have a common ancestor? Is that testible? In other words, can we see it? I don't think so, because if it once existed, it has decayed. In both cases, whether evolution or creationism, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO BELIEVE IN THE INVISIBLE. That's why I say it requires faith.

You say creationism cannot be tested. Oh, but it can - not the INFERENCE (that God exists) but the EVIDENCE (such as gravity). The same is true of evolution. Here again, I see false dichotomies.

Again, I agree that evidence exists. I won't dispute that. The difference is in the interpretation. The method of science demands that explanations of evidence make testable predictions. For instance: if john doe killed jane doe then his finger prints should be on the murder weapon, or his DNA should be found under her fingernails. These things can be directly tested. When we cannot find his fingerprints, or his DNA we start to falsify the hypothesis. If we find he has an alibi, we start to falsify the hypothesis.

Creationism makes no such predictions, there would be no possible observation that would be inconsistant with "goddidit." When all possible observations agree with your hypothesis then there is no way to actually test it. This just is not science.

Evolution is testable, it makes specific predictions about what should be revealed by the evidence. Predictions that if they are false will demonstrate that evolution cannot be true. These predictions are constantly confirmed. Evolution actually is science.

 

[JAL]

Actually, I specifically meant appearance. We know what things look like when we manufacture them, it is no big leap to extend those behaviors and methods to an alien being. It is a leap to conclude anything, even if it appears to have purpose, is the result of intelligence, unless you happen to discover the intelligence at work.

Yes it is a leap, and that leap is called faith. Precisely my point. Show me an aspect of science that doesn't require a leap. You yourself have already admitted that science does not, strictly speaking, make any pretense of having apodictically proven its conclusions.

You say it is a leap to infer intelligence. And it's an EASIER leap to infer non-intelligence? I've seen a whole lot of manufactured cars - manufactured by intelligent people. I've yet to see a car evolve, or manufacture itself unintelligently. Evolution requires a leap and, as I have seen it, a whole lot bigger leap of faith than creationism. You see, cars have parts that go in really tight spots. Sometimes you have to lift one part up and out of the way (though still attached) to get to another part. Otherwise the car will never be assembled. The problem is, of course, that Nature is not very likely to conveniently lift things out of the way in this manner. So it's much easier to imagine an intelligent person manufacturing the car than self-evolution. And this is precisely how we creationists feel about the human body. It's got a whole lot more parts, and a whole lot more tights spots. We generally feel that the ONLY scinetific conclusion is intelligent design.

 

[JAL]

Again, I agree that evidence exists. I won't dispute that. The difference is in the interpretation. The method of science demands that explanations of evidence make testable predictions. For instance: if john doe killed jane doe then his finger prints should be on the murder weapon, or his DNA should be found under her fingernails. These things can be directly tested. When we cannot find his fingerprints, or his DNA we start to falsify the hypothesis. If we find he has an alibi, we start to falsify the hypothesis.

Creationism makes no such predictions, there would be no possible observation that would be inconsistant with "goddidit."

You just gave one right? Most creationists, having found fingerprints on the gun, would not conclude that "God did it." Thus the forensic evidence is taken as contrary to "God did it." So yes, many aspects of creationism are considered falsifiable according to the creationist model. And since falsifiability is obviously your major criterion of science, thanks for the excellent example of why creationism is scientific. Is it possible that God fired that gun? Yes. As I have stated repeatedly, there seems to be no conclusion that is apodictic. When we use the word "falsifiable" we do not mean "apodictically falsifiable." If science only used apodictically falsifiable conclusions, there would be no science at all.
Now what about cases where the fingerprint is not human? According to Newton, gravity exhibits the fingerprint of a superior intelligence and power. This is forensic evidence of God. Please don't complain, "It's not falsifiable." Sure, it's not apodictically falsifiable, but it's falsifiable. It is possible, after all, that we might find an explanation, or discover a Martian species who is imposing gravity upon us.

 

[Ondoher]

Yes it is a leap, and that leap is called faith. Precisely my point. Show me an aspect of science that doesn't require a leap. You yourself have already admitted that science does not, strictly speaking, make any pretense of having apodictically proven its conclusions.

There is no faith in assuming that an alien species might have methods and materials similar to ours.

You say it is a leap to infer intelligence. And it's an EASIER leap to infer non-intelligence? I've seen a whole lot of manufactured cars - manufactured by intelligent people. I've yet to see a car evolve, or manufacture itself unintelligently.

Cars are not biological beings, and make poor analogies for livings things. Cars do not self replicate.

Evolution requires a leap and, as I have seen it, a whole lot bigger leap of faith than creationism.

No, evolution explains a great deal of the evidence and makes many accurate predictions. There is no faith required to lend it provisional acceptance.

You see, cars have parts that go in really tight spots. Sometimes you have to lift one part up and out of the way (though still attached) to get to another part. Otherwise the car will never be assembled. The problem is, of course, that Nature is not very likely to conveniently lift things out of the way in this manner. So it's much easier to imagine an intelligent person manufacturing the car than self-evolution. And this is precisely how we creationists feel about the human body. It's got a whole lot more parts, and a whole lot more tights spots. We generally feel that the ONLY scinetific conclusion is intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not science for the reasons listed in previous posts.

Interesting analogy about not moving things out of the way. There is a nerve called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. In fish, this nerve travels in a rather straight line. However, in mammals, the homologous nerve travels down the neck, around the aorta, and back up the neck. This is because evolution wasn't just able to reroute the nerve as the morphology changed via evolution. In giraffes, this nerve can travel an extra 10 to 15 feet. Easy to explain via evolution.

 

[Ondoher]

You just gave one right? Most creationists, having found fingerprints on the gun, would not conclude that "God did it." Thus the forensic evidence is taken as contrary to "God did it." So yes, many aspects of creationism are considered falsifiable according to the creationist model. And since falsifiability is obviously your major criterion of science, thanks for the excellent example of why creationism is scientific. Is it possible that God fired that gun? Yes. As I have stated repeatedly, there seems to be no conclusion that is apodictic. When we use the word "falsifiable" we do not mean "apodictically falsifiable." If science only used apodictically falsifiable conclusions, there would be no science at all.
Now what about cases where the fingerprint is not human? According to Newton, gravity exhibits the fingerprint of a superior intelligence and power. This is forensic evidence of God. Please don't complain, "It's not falsifiable." Sure, it's not apodictically falsifiable, but it's falsifiable. It is possible, after all, that we might find an explanation, or discover a Martian species who is imposing gravity upon us.

Lets get specific. Name one hypothetical observation that would be inconsistent with creationism. This will be the start of a testable, predictive model for creationism.

 

[JAL]

There is no faith in assuming that an alien species might have methods and materials similar to ours.
Cars are not biological beings, and make poor analogies for livings things. Cars do not self replicate.
No, evolution explains a great deal of the evidence and makes many accurate predictions. There is no faith required to lend it provisional acceptance.
Intelligent design is not science for the reasons listed in previous posts.

All I see here is more evidence of false dichtomies, not much here that I care to respond to. I guess this discussion is about over. But thanks for reminding me that "Cars do not replicate." That strengthens my case that the body, being able to replicate, and thus more sophisticated than a car, bears even greater evidence of intelligent design than a car does. Scientifically, therefore, I just find it hard to draw any other conclusion than creationism.

Interesting analogy about not moving things out of the way. There is a nerve called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. In fish, this nerve travels in a rather straight line. However, in mammals, the homologous nerve travels down the neck, around the aorta, and back up the neck. This is because evolution wasn't just able to reroute the nerve as the morphology changed via evolution. In giraffes, this nerve can travel an extra 10 to 15 feet. Easy to explain via evolution.

I'm not sure your point here. My model of creation (which is not orthodox by the way) would easily explain this as well. Thanks for your time. I might be heading off to bed soon.

 

[Randall McNally]

According to Newton, gravity exhibits the fingerprint of a superior intelligence and power. This is forensic evidence of God.

What is forensic evidence? Newton's 300-year-old speculations? You're kidding, right?

Please don't complain, "It's not falsifiable." Sure, it's not apodictically falsifiable, but it's falsifiable. It is possible, after all, that we might find an explanation, or discover a Martian species who is imposing gravity upon us.

Interesting. These appear to be similarly plausible metaphysical explanations for gravity. So why is there "forensic evidence of God" but "Martian species imposing gravity" is a mere throwaway line?

 

[JAL]

Lets get specific. Name one hypothetical observation that would be inconsistent with creationism. This will be the start of a testable, predictive model for creationism.

According to you, the great criterion of a scientific theory is its falsifiability. What if you're wrong? What if the essence of a good theory is not falsifiability? You've bought into this assumption rather religiously it seems to me. Frankly, I don't have that much faith.

Science is generally very concerned about matter. Ok, show me how to falsify the assumption that matter exists. Oh, I see. We can't falsify it, so according to your logic, the assumption that matter exists has no place in science. Well, then, I guess we better tell scientists to stop their experiments upon matter. Matter has no place in science because it cannot be falsified.

As I stated before, if we saw something in outer space that looked like evidence of intelligent life, the tentative conclusion that intelligent life exists would be a scientific conclusion. There is no way to ultimately falsify it - but that doesn't make it unscientific.

 

[Brahe]

According to you, the great criterion of a scientific theory is its falsifiability.

Uh, if a theory is not falsifiable, that means it offers no testable consequences. Without something in the way of a test, how would one judge if a theory is accurate or inaccurate? It's not that only good theories are testable, it's that a theory must be testable in order for it to be useful.

Do you need another explanation of why supernatural theories are scientifically useless? Or perhaps you can search talk.origins for supernatural car repairs?

What if you're wrong? What if the essence of a good theory is not falsifiability? You've bought into this assumption rather religiously it seems to me. Frankly, I don't have that much faith.

It always amuses me that creationists will vainly attempt to case evolutionary theory and science in general as some sort of competing religion. My hypothesis is that creationists have such a huge emotional investment in their own religion that they're willing to willfully ignore large amounts of evidence (and pure philosophy for that matter) that disproves their religious ideas. They then project this religious motivation onto all others.

(snip sophistry)

 

[Randall McNally]

According to you, the great criterion of a scientific theory is its falsifiability. What if you're wrong? What if the essence of a good theory is not falsifiability? You've bought into this assumption rather religiously it seems to me. Frankly, I don't have that much faith.

It's baffling that you would equate this with faith. Perhaps not; you seem to be projecting here.

We can come up with a virtually endless supply of explanations for a phenomenon that are both unfalsifiable and mutually exclusive. What good is a method that leads us to such an end?

If you're more deeply curious, I suggest a university course in philosophy of science or history and systems of science.

Science is generally very concerned about matter. Ok, show me how to falsify the assumption that matter exists. Oh, I see. We can't falsify it, so according to your logic, the assumption that matter exists has no place in science. Well, then, I guess we better tell scientists to stop their experiments upon matter. Matter has no place in science because it cannot be falsified.

"Matter exists" isn't a theory, it's a philosophy. It's part of what is known as methodological naturalism or methodological materialism.

As I stated before, if we saw something in outer space that looked like evidence of intelligent life, the tentative conclusion that intelligent life exists would be a scientific conclusion. There is no way to ultimately falsify it - but that doesn't make it unscientific.

Why is that an ultimately unfalsifiable theory?