Science is Dead to me

[expos4ever]

Unlike evolutionary theory, the creation model provides a viable answer for the origin of life that adheres to the scientific Law of Biogenesis.

But the theory of evolution makes no claims at all about the origin of life.

 

[Job 33:6]

In case anyone was completely confused about how to read the Bible, I'll go ahead and remind everyone here that the Bible describes ancient near east cosmology, and not modern 21st century science:

It is essentially a pre-scientific cosmological perspective of the universe:

And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Genesis 1:6

God made the dome, and separated the waters which were below the dome from the waters which were above the dome; and it was so. God called the dome heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:7‭-‬8

And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
Genesis 1:14

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 7:11

the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Genesis 8:2

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the dome of the sky.”
Genesis 1:20

And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And the Lord stood beside him [or stood above it] and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring;
Genesis 28:12‭-‬13

“You shall not make for yourself a divine image with any form that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below or that is in the water below the earth.
Exodus 20:4

and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Exodus 24:10

Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’
Job 22:14

He has described a circle [earths shape] on the face of the water between light and darkness. “The pillars of heaven tremble, and they are astounded at his rebuke.
Job 26:10‭-‬11

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Job 37:18

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, Which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18

can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
Job 37:18

Have you entered the storehouse of the snow, or seen the armory of the hail,
Job 38:22
God stores his weapons and mana in storehouses to help the isrealites in battle, and to give gifts to His people.

So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Joshua 10:13

‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭1:5‬ ‭
The sun rises, and the sun goes down; to its place it hurries, and there it rises again.

Yet in all the world their line goes out, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has pitched a tent for the sun,
Psalms 19:4

The tree that you saw, which grew great and strong, so that its top reached to heaven and was visible to the end of the whole earth,
Daniel 4:20

The Lord sits enthroned over the flood; the Lord sits enthroned as king forever.
Psalms 29:10

Yet he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven,
Psalm 78:23

you set the beams of your chambers on the waters, you make the clouds your chariot, you ride on the wings of the wind,
Psalms 104:3

He causes the clouds to arise from the end of the earth, makes lightning bolts accompany the rain, and brings the wind out of his storehouses.
Psalms 135:7

To him who spread out the earth above the waters, for his loyal love endures forever.
Psalms 136:6

Praise him, highest heavens, and waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of Yahweh, because he commanded and they were created. And he put them in place *forever and ever*, by a decree he gave that will not pass away.
Psalms 148:4‭-‬6

Praise Yah. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty firmament.
Psalms 150:1

and all the host of heaven shall rot. And the skies shall roll up like a scroll, and all their host shall wither like the withering of a leaf from a vine, or like the withering from a fig tree.
Isaiah 34:4

It is he who sits above the *circle* of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Isaiah 40:22

Over the heads of the angels there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads.
Ezekiel 1:22

And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire stone; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.
Ezekiel 1:26

And I looked, and look! On the dome that was above the head of the cherubim something like a stone of sapphire, and like the appearance of the shape of a throne it appeared above them.
Ezekiel 10:1

He made strong the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed, When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
Proverbs 8:28-‬29

The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was why removed from its place.
Revelation 6:14

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”
Revelation 4:1

“Where were you at my laying the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding. Who determined its measurement? Yes, you do know. Or who stretched the measuring line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
Job 38:4‭-‬6

The earth and all its inhabitants are shaking; I steady its columns. Selah
Psalms 75:3

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, And he hath set the world upon them.
1 Samuel 2:8

 

[mindlight]

Based on what I think you are saying, I disagree. From Scientific American (15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense):

CLAIM: Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

All this says is that microevolution can be observed and macroevolution surmised. But the simple answer is that there were not 24 different species of sparrow on the ark so no creationist has to dispute microevolution. Guesswork from the fossil record about macro-evolutionary changes is still just guessing.

 

[mindlight]

In case anyone was completely confused about how to read the Bible, I'll go ahead and remind everyone here that the Bible describes ancient near east cosmology, and not modern 21st century science:

It is essentially a pre-scientific cosmological perspective of the universe:

And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Genesis 1:6

God made the dome, and separated the waters which were below the dome from the waters which were above the dome; and it was so. God called the dome heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:7‭-‬8

And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
Genesis 1:14

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 7:11

the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Genesis 8:2

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the dome of the sky.”
Genesis 1:20

And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And the Lord stood beside him [or stood above it] and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring;
Genesis 28:12‭-‬13

“You shall not make for yourself a divine image with any form that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below or that is in the water below the earth.
Exodus 20:4

and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Exodus 24:10

Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’
Job 22:14

He has described a circle [earths shape] on the face of the water between light and darkness. “The pillars of heaven tremble, and they are astounded at his rebuke.
Job 26:10‭-‬11

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Job 37:18

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, Which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18

can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
Job 37:18

Have you entered the storehouse of the snow, or seen the armory of the hail,
Job 38:22
God stores his weapons and mana in storehouses to help the isrealites in battle, and to give gifts to His people.

So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Joshua 10:13

‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭1:5‬ ‭
The sun rises, and the sun goes down; to its place it hurries, and there it rises again.

Yet in all the world their line goes out, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has pitched a tent for the sun,
Psalms 19:4

The tree that you saw, which grew great and strong, so that its top reached to heaven and was visible to the end of the whole earth,
Daniel 4:20

The Lord sits enthroned over the flood; the Lord sits enthroned as king forever.
Psalms 29:10

Yet he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven,
Psalm 78:23

you set the beams of your chambers on the waters, you make the clouds your chariot, you ride on the wings of the wind,
Psalms 104:3

He causes the clouds to arise from the end of the earth, makes lightning bolts accompany the rain, and brings the wind out of his storehouses.
Psalms 135:7

To him who spread out the earth above the waters, for his loyal love endures forever.
Psalms 136:6

Praise him, highest heavens, and waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of Yahweh, because he commanded and they were created. And he put them in place *forever and ever*, by a decree he gave that will not pass away.
Psalms 148:4‭-‬6

Praise Yah. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty firmament.
Psalms 150:1

and all the host of heaven shall rot. And the skies shall roll up like a scroll, and all their host shall wither like the withering of a leaf from a vine, or like the withering from a fig tree.
Isaiah 34:4

It is he who sits above the *circle* of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Isaiah 40:22

Over the heads of the angels there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads.
Ezekiel 1:22

And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire stone; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.
Ezekiel 1:26

And I looked, and look! On the dome that was above the head of the cherubim something like a stone of sapphire, and like the appearance of the shape of a throne it appeared above them.
Ezekiel 10:1

He made strong the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed, When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
Proverbs 8:28-‬29

The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was why removed from its place.
Revelation 6:14

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”
Revelation 4:1

“Where were you at my laying the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding. Who determined its measurement? Yes, you do know. Or who stretched the measuring line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
Job 38:4‭-‬6

The earth and all its inhabitants are shaking; I steady its columns. Selah
Psalms 75:3

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, And he hath set the world upon them.
1 Samuel 2:8

Only if you misinterpret every one of those verses.

 

[mindlight]

But the theory of evolution makes no claims at all about the origin of life.

True about evolution not explaining the origin of life. For that, you need chemical evolution to stay true to the naturalistic assumptions and methods. But abiogenesis is completely untestable and most mainstream scientists only tentatively accept it as a hypothesis (not even a theory or a model) for which there is no real evidence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I pursued a neuroscience degree, after studying pharmacy, and just hate the whole fraud of it all so went into a completely different field.

I don't care what the 'truth' is beyond what I can see. Everything else is boring speculation for the sake of self glorification in a professional capacity, IMO, hence the stupid article I've posted here. It just all seems like theatre for the sake of a bored population who is desperate to believe scientific enquiry has merit. Jigsaw puzzles are more interesting to me, at this stage!

Oh, don't be a scientific party pooper, sister! It ain't all bad. It's just not all good.

I will say, too, that in the position of a student of science, while I value the essentials of science in its diverse disciplines and subdisciplines, we all know it's a fact that it can all too easily be either misconstrued (like String Theory has been) or misused (like Oppheimer clearly saw with the development of nuclear science) or sometimes fraudently pushed as "cutting edge research" so as to garner the public support for projects that simply line the pockets of certain scientists (or certain institutions) who want to be "famous" and grab the cash or who want to assure their claim to political power.

So, yeah. You're right to imply that we have to be discerning. Very discerning.

 

[Job 33:6]

Only if you misinterpret every one of those verses.

It's not misinterpreting. It's acknowledging the original historical context.

 

[prodromos]

In academia it is "publish or perish". Since there aren't too many subjects which haven't been done to death, there are quite a few academics who will come up with any kind of nonsense just so they can keep their name in the journals.

 

[BeyondET]

It appears computer science isn't dead

 

[Fervent]

The thing that needs to be understood about science is that when science corrects past misconceptions by learning more, that isn't a defect, that's science doing what it's supposed to be doing.

Science isn't a set of dogmas, but a methodology that is constantly seeking to make sense of the natural world through observation, study and experimentation. These are all basic things we all learned in elementary school about science. Assuming we were paying attention in class.

-CryptoLutheran

This is only partially true, science as it operates today is built on a metaphysical model of the universe that is essentially atheistic. It treats God as either non-existent, or completely irrelevant and then builds a model of mechanical causation which is pushed until it breaks and is replaced with the next mechanical model. Atheism is baked into the methodology, especially when it is treated as the only valid epistemic paradigm.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is only partially true, science as it operates today is built on a metaphysical model of the universe that is essentially atheistic. It treats God as either non-existent, or completely irrelevant and then builds a model of mechanical causation which is pushed until it breaks and is replaced with the next mechanical model. Atheism is baked into the methodology, especially when it is treated as the only valid epistemic paradigm.

Science relies--it has always relied--on methodological naturalism. That's not atheistic, it's naturalistic: a scientific explanation is by definition a naturalistic explanation.

That's how the scientific method has always operated.

God's involvement in nature isn't scientific, but theological. Science can only operate within the confines of nature--what is observable and testable in nature. That is not a flaw in science; it is no more a flaw in science than we don't invoke God to explain how to bake a pizza or how to operate a bicycle or how to file our taxes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

Science relies--it has always relied--on methodological naturalism. That's not atheistic, it's naturalistic: a scientific explanation is by definition a naturalistic explanation.

That's how the scientific method has always operated.

God's involvement in nature isn't scientific, but theological. Science can only operate within the confines of nature--what is observable and testable in nature. That is not a flaw in science; it is no more a flaw in science than we don't invoke God to explain how to bake a pizza or how to operate a bicycle or how to file our taxes.

-CryptoLutheran

The flaw is not in science itself, but in the pride of place it has taken in epistemics. As a tool for creating and refining mechanical models of the universe that give us a practical ability to manipulate the world around us it is without equal. But the flaw is in the philosophy of science, when the mechanical models are taken to be evidence of the truth of the naturalistic assumptions at the heart of the scientific method. There is no separating a methodological naturalism from a metaphysical naturalism as necessary assumptions for science to proceed such as causal closure render it compatible only with non-interventionist theologies like deism or pantheism. The models that science produces are fictions of the human imagination, and the flaw comes when people mistake scientific conclusions as truth since science does not concern itself with what is true only what is workable.

 

[Job 33:6]

The flaw is not in science itself, but in the pride of place it has taken in epistemics. As a tool for creating and refining mechanical models of the universe that give us a practical ability to manipulate the world around us it is without equal. But the flaw is in the philosophy of science, when the mechanical models are taken to be evidence of the truth of the naturalistic assumptions at the heart of the scientific method. There is no separating a methodological naturalism from a metaphysical naturalism as necessary assumptions for science to proceed such as causal closure render it compatible only with non-interventionist theologies like deism or pantheism. The models that science produces are fictions of the human imagination, and the flaw comes when people mistake scientific conclusions as truth since science does not concern itself with what is true only what is workable.

Is gravity not true or not real, on the basis that it is "merely" workable while lacking a metaphysical explanation?

In our military, we use scientific models to direct missiles at targets for offensive or defensive actions. Are these kinematic models "fiction" or somehow un-true?

I oftentimes think of the birth of a baby. Some people can look at a childs birth and can see God directly involved in the act. Creating life from the womb or within the womb in which we are stitched together.

Other people see cells and dna and mitochondria and cell division and all sorts of science-things. And some people act as if this is all there is to it. The scientific models address the mechanisms. But science doesnt address Gods agency and involvement. In which case, really the issue has nothing to do with science, nor models of science. But rather the issue is with the theological or religious considerations of the observer.

 

[Fervent]

Is gravity not true or not real, on the basis that it is "merely" workable while lacking a metaphysical explanation?

In our military, we use scientific models to direct missiles at targets for offensive or defensive actions. Are these kinematic models "fiction" or somehow un-true?

I oftentimes think of the birth of a baby. Some people can look at a childs birth and can see God directly involved in the act. Creating life from the womb or within the womb in which we are stitched together.

Other people see cells and dna and mitochondria and cell division and all sorts of science-things. And some people act as if this is all there is to it. The scientific models address the mechanisms. But science doesnt address Gods agency and involvement. In which case, really the issue has nothing to do with science, nor models of science. But rather the issue is with the theological or religious considerations of the observer.

If only it were that simple. But yes, those models are fictions just as a map is a fiction. They correlate to the truth, but they are purely models of a mechanical world and necessarily reduce the world to mechanics, eliminating any sort of interventionist or miracle-making God. In practical application, this allows us to manipulate the order and regularity of the world but the metaphysical considerations about causal operations are purely theoretical, and fictional. When it comes to questions of unobservables and more importantly history, the assumption that there have been uniform and inviolable laws of mechanical operation that have always been in place in all places and times is critical to answering such questions. The method is wholly dependent on the metaphysics, and the metaphysics exclude all but the most ineffectual gods.

 

[The Barbarian]

There absolutely IS room for that belief and your reasons for dismissing it are childish and convenient and not based on logic which is what scientists should be pursuing as they try to come to a precise understanding of the universe. So you will believe what you will but the sanctimonious comments seem silly when they are supporting a view that clearly misunderstands science.

Today's winner.

Mark Twain lampooned such foolish attitudes by saying "faith is believing what you know ain't so."

 

[The Barbarian]

I oftentimes think of the birth of a baby. Some people can look at a childs birth and can see God directly involved in the act. Creating life from the womb or within the womb in which we are stitched together.

Other people see cells and dna and mitochondria and cell division and all sorts of science-things. And some people act as if this is all there is to it. The scientific models address the mechanisms. But science doesnt address Gods agency and involvement. In which case, really the issue has nothing to do with science, nor models of science. But rather the issue is with the theological or religious considerations of the observer.

Yes. God made the universe to work as it does. I don't like most of the assumptions of "Intelligent Design", but it seems the better-informed of the IDers consider the universe to have been "front-loaded" to produce all things that we see, including us.

And yes, they consider that to be inconsistent with the man-made doctrines of special creationism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If only it were that simple. But yes, those models are fictions just as a map is a fiction. They correlate to the truth, but they are purely models of a mechanical world and necessarily reduce the world to mechanics, eliminating any sort of interventionist or miracle-making God. In practical application, this allows us to manipulate the order and regularity of the world but the metaphysical considerations about causal operations are purely theoretical, and fictional. When it comes to questions of unobservables and more importantly history, the assumption that there have been uniform and inviolable laws of mechanical operation that have always been in place in all places and times is critical to answering such questions. The method is wholly dependent on the metaphysics, and the metaphysics exclude all but the most ineffectual gods.

Yes, scientific models are fictions, but not in the same denotatively colloquial way that citing 2001: A Space Odyssey as a work of "fiction" would be.

Scientific models are generaly, even if not always precisely, more conceptually and ontologically robust than the average fiction. This is why scientists will say that they are interested in truth, with the caveat that with falsifiability or verifiability in tow, those "truths" that are posited are seen as Provisionals Truths about our world and universe rather than as Absolute Truths.

And for the Methodological Naturalist, Provisional Truths do not rule out God. Rather, God is assumed to be incommensurable where experimental science is being performed, so we have to remain epistemically "agnostic" as we conduct experiments. We can't put controls in place for God as a variable; so, it's best not to assume either way.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, scientific models are fictions, but not in the same denotatively colloquial way that citing 2001: A Space Odyssey as a work of "fiction" would be.

Scientific models are generaly, even if not always precisely, more conceptually and ontologically robust than that the average fiction. This is why scientists will say that they are interested in truth, with the caveat that with falsifiability or verifiability in tow, those "truths" are posited as Provisionals Truths about our world and universe rather than as Absolute Truths.

And for the Methodological Naturalist, Provisional Truths do not rule out God. Rather, God is assumed to be incommesurable where experimental science is being performed, so we have to remain epistemically "agnostic" as we conduct experiment. We can't put controls in place for God as a variable; so, it's best not to assume either way.

Scientific models can't broach ontology, because they operate purely on the level of phenomena and as such say nothing about what the objects they are studying are in themselves. They're certainly more robust than imaginative works, but where they go beyond directly observable phenomena we cannot be sure how close to the truth they are in fact. The models that are in operation today could be replaced wholesale tomorrow should they begin to reach their point of failure. In fact, it seems likely that the model of particle physics will shortly be replaced with a new model in the near future. All this said, I do not mean this as an attack on science because I recognize the value of these fictions as a matter of practicality. I simply take an instrumentalist view, and reserve judgement as to the metaphysics that serve to undergird scientific exploration.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Scientific models can't broach ontology, because they operate purely on the level of phenomena and as such say nothing about what the objects they are studying are in themselves. They're certainly more robust than imaginative works, but where they go beyond directly observable phenomena we cannot be sure how close to the truth they are in fact. The models that are in operation today could be replaced wholesale tomorrow should they begin to reach their point of failure. In fact, it seems likely that the model of particle physics will shortly be replaced with a new model in the near future. All this said, I do not mean this as an attack on science because I recognize the value of these fictions as a matter of practicality. I simply take an instrumentalist view, and reserve judgement as to the metaphysics that serve to undergird scientific exploration.

That's fine if Instrumentalism is your chosen point of view. It's not mine but I philosophically make allowance for many things since most of this sort of discussion breaks down more or less into various tracks that immediately step over into Philosophy of Science rather than remain in hard science itself.

I'm not here to pontificate over and against fellow Christians. I have my view about science that is mine, and without being contentious about it, I merely let folks know that I have my own scholarly sources and studies by which I've reached my own conclusions.

As for the ontology of scientific theories, I think there is at least some minimal substance that our modern science(s) actually digs into, and it does so rather successfully with the current models it has, but with the exception that the interweaving of Ethics into it all has had a very hard go of it, despite all of the lip-service about "moral integrity" that has been expressed by all sides ...

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, scientific models are fictions, but not in the same denotatively colloquial way that citing 2001: A Space Odyssey as a work of "fiction" would be.

Scientific models are generaly, even if not always precisely, more conceptually and ontologically robust than the average fiction. This is why scientists will say that they are interested in truth, with the caveat that with falsifiability or verifiability in tow, those "truths" that are posited are seen as Provisionals Truths about our world and universe rather than as Absolute Truths.

And for the Methodological Naturalist, Provisional Truths do not rule out God. Rather, God is assumed to be incommensurable where experimental science is being performed, so we have to remain epistemically "agnostic" as we conduct experiments. We can't put controls in place for God as a variable; so, it's best not to assume either way.

Yes. I usually explain how plumbing is also methodologically naturalistic, and that it's just a silly to expect a biologist to be concerned bout God and demons in his work as it would be for a plumber to seek out the demons of blockage. The thing is, creationists are not scared of plumbing.