What is science (or how do you define it?)

Parsimony is a feature of methodological naturalism. If the evidence is consistent with a natural mechanism then a supernatural mechanism is not considered. Here is an interesting quote I have used elsewhere:

That quote is from 1882. Parsimony has been a part of modern science from its inception.

As us atheists have often mentioned, an amputee having their limb instantly restored would be quite compelling.

1 Like

Good point about amputees. Keener has a chapter on this in his book. A fascinating case he draws from:

“In one medically documented case, what grew back was an organ far more complex than an arm or a leg. This is the account of thirty-six-year-old diesel mechanic Bruce Van Natta of Wisconsin.”

I googled him, and he has quite an amazing story, but actually does not involve a severed arm, but rather he claims a supernatural lengthening of his intestines after a crush injury. It would be interesting to actually see a case report from the medical perspective, and I would think there should be one somewhere,

1 Like

Keener has this reference for full documentation and discussion:

Joel Lantz, Bridges for Honest Skeptics, 3rd ed. (n.p.: Joel Lantz, 2016), 55–68, available at no cost at https://www.obooko.com/free-philos-ophy-books/bridges-for-est-skep-tics-lantz and other sites.

I get 404 Page not found with that. I did read a bit more on a

Quora post about his experience, which added a bit of detail, despite the awfulness of Quora at times, and he spent 2 months in the hospital, had 9 major surgeries, and had short gut syndrome due to his injuries, which improved with time. I am happy to say that his recovery was miraculous and possible through God’s power and grace in his provision of remarkable medical care, but it did not appear supernatural. And I cringe a little as I say that, as I think there are true supernatural (from our perspective) miracles.

I guess how this relates to original post topic, is that sometimes whether something is due to science or whether due to divine intervention is apparently not dependent on the facts and data, but rather the perspective.

I agree that M.N. can never consider a supernatural cause but wouldn’t peg this primarily on a reason of “parsimony” (although you are correct that parsimony is certainly a good overall principle in science). Personally my main problem with considering supernatural causes within the framework of M.N. is that one cannot generate falsifiable predictions from them.

Intestines can naturally grow in length.

“More recently, self-expanding springs have been used to lengthen the small intestine using an intraluminal axial mechanical force, where this biomechanical force stimulates the growth and elongation of the small intestine.”

Your intestines also grow with you during life. This is not the same as regrowing a limb.

Here’s an updated link:

As the immediate effect of a cause that may or may not be aware of its action, it could be that such things are by definition or intuition - unpredictable.

There is also an adaptive response, as the bowel improves in its ability to absorb nutrients, and also enlarges due to increased use. I have a friend whose child lost a lot their gut due to a volvulus (twist in the gut with resultant death of the compromised bowel) and they have gone from being totally dependent on IV nutrition to where they can absorb enough nutrients to manage without it and live a pretty normal life.

Hello again! If scientists tell us that the earth revolves around the sun, and the Bible clearly says that the earth doesn’t move, should we go with the scientists or the Bible?