No, it is because that is the best educated naturalistic guess that we have at the moment.
There's no need for that qualifier "naturalistic". It's also inappropriate to call it a "guess" as that does not at all properly represent the evidence based
conclusions / explanations that come out of scientific inquiry.
Fact remains, the explanations of science
work.
As I said in a previous post: if you calibrate GPS satelite clocks to account for relativistic effects, then the system can accurately pinpoint your position on earth. If you don't take into account relativistic effects, then it's off by several miles.
The theory of relativity
works. Is it 100% accurate? Likely it isn't. Is it our best approximation to date? It sure is. Is it likely to be completely & utterly wrong? No. If it would be "completely and utterly wrong", then GPS wouldn't work as well as it does.
Take Newton's theory of gravity. Was it completely and utterly wrong? No.
In fact, it works so well that it is still more then adequate for calculations where relativistic effects are so small that they are neglectable. Once speed or gravity goes up, relativistic effects become more prevalent. And then it no longer works well enough. Relativity is more accurate then Newtonian physics. But you can't exactly call Newtonian physics "wrong".
Contrast that with something like creationism. That's a whole other category of "wrong". It's not even a little correct. It's absurdly wrong. So wrong, that some people even refer to it as "not even wrong".
Creationism is not even "guessing". It's rather talking out of ones behind.
Science for example has no idea what life and consciousness is
I think that's debatable, but it certainly hasn't figured those things out properly, so I'll go a long with it.
In any case, I don't see how it is a problem that there are things that science has yet to figure out. Most likely, there are also things that science will simply never figure out. Nobody is claiming science holds the answer to anything and everything. If that were the case, we wouldn't be training scientists anymore and scientists wouldn't even exist, since there'ld be nothing left to study.
The whole point of the scientific enterprise, is to tackle those unanswered questions.
and has not idea that any of the educated naturalistic guesses actually work or are true. But of course it all has to be naturalistic.
We've been over this already. It doesn't "have to be" naturalistic at all.
What it has to be is
verifiable.
Sure, it looks for natural causes for natural effects. Do you know why?
Because there is no evidence of anything else.
Bring science evidence of supernatural causes producing effects, natural or otherwise, and science will happily include it. In fact, it will likely earn you a nobel.
That is the limitation of science and what it finds is not necessarily the truth.
The limitation of science, is verifiable evidence.
Science has no idea about how a data accumulating and using system like our genes can develop without an intelligence behind the design
It's called evolution theory. Or are you talking about abiogenesis?
, but the scientific answer is that atoms and molecules under the right conditions formed these genes which carry information which other atoms and molecules can read and use to shape a nose or ear etc.
I can guarantee you that the science of abiogenesis is much further along then you think it is.
Having said that, nobody is claiming that science has a conclusive explanation of how life forms. So once again I wonder why you say this as if it is a problem.
It's a question without conclusive answer, so scientists do research and try to find an answer. Why is this a problem?
Mutations are caused by natural random processes but that does not mean the whole system came about that way.
Nobody is saying that evolution explains the origins of life, so I don't know why you say this.
Scientists who try to answer the question of the origins of life, are looking for a (bio)chemical process, sure. Because it is the most likely candidate.
Do you have a better and even more likely candidate in mind? If you do, don't forget to mention the reasons for why it is more likely.
OK then, "They are what they are, naturalistic educated guesses at what must have happened "
As we have seen above...
1. There is no need for the qualifier "naturalistic"
2. the term "guess" isn't a proper representation of what a scientific theory actually is.
And no scientific explanation has this disclaimer attached either.
Neither is the rest of the statement a proper representation of what scientific theories are.
As I said before, this seems to be just some tactic of yours to try and raise up your faith based god-claims, only by trying to bring down science to a similar level of makebelief.
I consider this to be intellectual dishonesty.
If you wish to raise your god-claims, then play fairly and come up with positive evidence FOR those claims, instead of trying to attack those you feel are incompatible.
