Science is inherently atheistic

[polymath257]

Except that you're not actually proposing adherence to scientific standards as evidenced by your prior post.  When the cause is supernatural, the ultimate cause is somehow critical to scientific inquiry.  But when the subject is gravity, suddenly the ultimate metaphysical cause is irrelevant.  I'm pointing out your inconsistency, which your latest claim of adherence to and support of the scientific method does nothing to resolve.

False. Was looking for something simple so you can understand this, so took the explanation(s) from Study.com, which I'm hoping we can agree that they're sharing for the sake of teaching and learning without regard for adding bias.  Page I'm using is linked there.

"Natural laws arise from the process known as the scientific method. The scientific method is the systematic study of the natural world through experimentation and observation. This method provides scientists with a rigorous framework to objectively study the natural world. Using the scientific method, natural laws can be verified through experiments conducted by independent observers."

(Already said this, but apparently it wasn't good enough.  It can be tested, repeated, and applied within the natural world and for scientific study.)

And of course here is an example on the same page using Newtons Law of Universal.

"When natural laws are mentioned, one of the more common scientific disciplines that comes to mind is physics. Laws in physics include concepts such as Newton's law of universal gravitation. This law describes the attractive gravitational force (F) that exists between two masses (M sub 1 and M sub 2). Here is the law of universal gravitation expressed as a mathematical equation: "

I think Newton's "Law" is a very good example of what we are talking about.

Newton originally considered his force law, but did not publish it, because he could not figure out the mathematics involved in attraction between two spherical bodies. He tested his ideas by comparing with what was known about the motions of the moon and the planets.

Later, it was found that the Newtonian predictions for the orbit of Uranus didn't agree with the observations. To rectify this, a new planet was proposed and Newton's laws were used to predict where to observe that planet. From this, the planet Neptune was discovered.

Later still, it was found that the Newtonian predictions for the orbit of Mercury didn't agree with the observations. To rectify this, a new planet was proposed (and even given a name---Vulcan). However, no such planet was ever discovered. Instead, Einstein modified Newtonian physics and produced a *new* description of gravity: General Relativity. When this new description was applied to the orbit of Mercury, the predictions and observations agreed.

The point is that what determines a natural law is observation and observed behavior. That's it. Newton's laws are not sacred revelations, nor are Einstein's. They are subject to modification based on new observations and new tests. No law if *ever* completely verified: there is always the possibility that new observations another decimal place out will require modification of our ideas.

The same is true for *all* natural laws: they are all descriptive and subject to modification based on new information.

If, for example, a vampire was discovered that could turn into a bat, then a great deal of physics would immediately be brought into question. because of that, the confidence in the evidence for such a transformation would have to be quite good. But if it were established, the science would have to change.

There is nothing *inherent* in the properties of vampires that says that the scientific method cannot be used to determine their properties or behavior.