Assuming you mean they are not the ones that pretend things.
And what, are philosophers more guilty of that, or is it the apologists?
No, scientists allow their metaphysical presumptions to bleed over. There are inescapable intuitions rational creatures cannot ever truly be free from, that is without suffering the label of being an irrationalist.
That bit about the infinite divisibility of space is important. Did that prove to you my understanding of non-Duhemian science?
I don’t know about all of them, but I don’t think Myers’s advocates a young earth. He does not accept evolution, but is fine with an old earth I understand. And Behe accepts both an old earth, and common descent, but holds that divine intervention was needed to produce it. Don’t know about the rest, although those that are employees of ICR and AIG I can assume are YEC.
Behe and Meyer both profess the earth is old, and they are right on that much. The rest start with their statement of faith, explicitly or otherwise, and then make up evidence to fit.
Oh… hold everything… it just occurred to me as an early morning insight 
this is precisely what science is doing when it thinks it can statistically prove something has occurred without cause
Stephen Myer signed the following statement in 2001
The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast. This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series’ attempt to stigmatize all critics – including scientists – as religious “creationists” is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination.[53]
The question was addressed here:
The fact is that there are plenty of things that would indicate that the earth was young if it actually were. The only problem is that those things are not what we observe.
A list of people’s names is not physical evidence. Neither, for that matter, is a bunch of quotes and sound bites from those people.
What is physical evidence? Measurements. Data. Graphs and charts. Maps. Photographs. Computer simulations. Laboratory reports. That sort of thing.
As I’ve already pointed out, the word “Darwinism” in this context is a weasel word. It is so vague and ambiguous that it is perfectly possible to question it while acknowledging the universal common ancestry of humans, animals, and all life on earth.
No, not a typo. I mean science is not an agent capable of pretending things. Science is an abstract human construct that represents the product of scientific inquiry. Scientists are agents who can pretend and recognize and “allow their metaphysical presumptions to bleed over” into what they are labeling science.
No, I didn’t understand it, or see how it related to the discussion of methodological naturalism or investigating miracles at all.
Science doesn’t think things. Scientists do. And I am not aware of statistics “proving” anything. Statistics establish probabilities and probabilities speak to likelihoods, they don’t prove things occurred or did not occur in the past.
You are still wrong. Nothing in that statement indicates Meyer holds to a young earth. He testified, under oath, that the earth is billions of years old.
That has nothing to do with a young earth, which was the subject of the comment you linked him to. But, I am not totally sure about Myers who has been pretty evasive ( ID and the age of the earth | ScienceBlogs ) whereas Behe is quoted on his Wikipedia page as to his stand.
Seems like a variation on the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Is it possible you do not understand what non-Duhemian science is? Have you seen scientists consider the question of whether space is infinitely divisible? It’s really something as they wrap their minds around the possibility that is. And yet it can’t be… because if it is… then… that can’t be… and then there’s the problem of empirical verification… oy vey
How often over the years have I seen it said in scientific discussion that it has been demonstrated that an event can occur without cause. And I’m pretty sure this is based on statistical data.
“it doesn’t mean that they can never be part of a proper scientific theory”
Something which would be an important part of a proper scientific theory is a recognition of what can and cannot be empirically determined. Understanding how an uncaused cause would be unobservable by nature would go a long way. Maybe too far for most people’s comfort.
I do not have a clear concept of what non-Duhemian science is, but my reading comprehension is good enough to understand the distinction between Duhemian science and non-Duhemian science is very important to the point Plantinga is making about the appropriateness of methodological naturalism. So when you say stuff I know is wrong like “science can investigate miracles” and then say, look, Plantinga agrees with me because he opposed methodological naturalism in non-Duhemian science, I suspect that you are not really grasping the point he was making either.
My best guess is that Plantinga is labeling Duhemian science any hypothesis where underlying metaphysical assumptions of the investigator are either totally uncontested by investigators from different perspectives or they are irrelevant to the question at hand. He is labeling non-Duhemian science any hypothesis where metaphysical assumptions of the investigator shape the questions and interpretation of evidence. I understand that at the fringes of theoretical physics you find these types of situations, but it’s my impression that the vast majority of scientific investigation happens in the realm where Plantinga is saying methodological naturalism is perfectly appropriate.
A scientific theory is a model that incorporates multiple confirmed hypotheses and makes useful predictions. I don’t see how “recognizing what can’t be empirically determined” is part of any working model.
If we are applying the scientific method, your experience could not be included because it is not empirical. That’s not to say that you didn’t have these experiences or that they aren’t real, only that they aren’t empirical. The point of the scientific method is to start from facts that everyone can verify for themselves through agreed upon methods. This isn’t meant to be inclusive of everything that is true, only that which we can all verify to be true to the best of our abilities through a process that is independent of any single person.
Since you seem to be a big fan of deeper philosophical concepts, this ties in well with the basic concept of a logical argument. If we can all agree that the premises are true, and the logic of the argument is valid, then the conclusion that emerges from the premises and argument is also true. Science is defining what constitutes an agreed upon premise.
It is more of a rhetorical question.
The point is that science can be discovered again. Even if all of the knowledge we have stored in books and bits were wiped away, and even if all of our memories and mental knowledge were wiped away, we could still reconstruct all of the scientific theories we have today. That’s because those theories flow from the evidence, and that evidence would still be there for everyone to discover.
Added in edit:
It is worth noting that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both discovered the theory of evolution independently of one another at about the same time.
I certainly didn’t mean to say it that way if I did
That’s my understanding too
I want to reiterate that this is my understanding. But it is often the exceptions that form the rule.
And with a few one off events in the scope of human history too
Let’s call it the background to any working model 
Either way, I’m glad you at least considered it.
My point was that this is technically speaking still evidence.
I would agree. It is evidence, just not scientific evidence which is a subset of all evidence.
And quantum particles that appear to come from no where are also evidence. But is it scientific? Don’t tell me it depends on how you use the evidence.
What are the hypotheses? What measurements are they making? How are the experiments set up? How do their results and conclusions compare to what others are reporting?
Any number of things can objectively appear to come from no where. I didn’t say that it did. Just that it appears this way. Would this count as objectively verifiable empirical evidence?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.