Evolutionary Tree

[Esquilax]

Good Example of what I was talking about.... Just to clarify, I do think that science may support an a priori bias, the problem is when your a prior bias interferes with what the evidence leads to, and you are dismissing or cherry picking the evidence because of.

So we've got you here, bemoaning a priori biases against things that have no evidence even indicating them, and which you are incapable of providing the evidence that would make insisting on naturalism actually an a priori bias, essentially making your insistence on the supernatural anyway literally the thing you're going on about...

And we've got Steve on the other side, asserting that the supernatural actively resists scientific detection, meaning that there's no possible way that science could ever countenance the supernatural to begin with, let alone be biased against it.

Which is true? Shouldn't you two be sorting that out? And moreover, what exactly do you want from us, if you can't actually bring any evidence to bear?

You seem to just want to disqualify scientific ideas that disagree with you out of hand as biased, without either showing how a balanced view of the situation would include the thing you're asserting is being unfairly excluded, nor showing how you know that bias even exists, given that you don't know a single fucking person you're accusing, here. It's just a silencing tactic, right now.