Because he is correct. Emperical science only provides raw data. Humans must draw the conclusions. The conclusions must be performed through right reasoning.
To state that science excludes supernatural explanations and that scientists need not be believers in a personal God to be good scientists is not scientism but fact. You seem to be saying that only believers can produce good theories from their observations - perhaps what you mean is that only believers, some believers, develop hypotheses that you like.
The Church did not have an official position on Limbo. It was considered by theologians. However, the Church did reason this out and correctly so.
With regard to Limbo, my point is that it is not a subject that is amenable to reason.
lol…well that made me laugh…too funny…thanks/!
As with many theological topics (like the nature of Heaven, for example), it seems to be the other way around: it is not amenable to empirical observation, and so is ONLY amenable to reason. (Insofar as it can be known at all, of course.)
Great. You can find God in love, art, as well as nature.
Has presenting the truth ever ended one of these arguments? lol…not likely…Willfull disregard for the truth. I’m ready for the next round …I haven’t had the abiogenesis argument is while.
Well, it certainly isn’t amenable to empirical observation - we agree on that.
Thank you for your concern, and grudging acceptance that I am not “totally limited” which is hugely charitable, but I am an MBTI “thinker” so appeals to emotion don’t cut much ice with me.
Hi Alec
So are all the sources on philosophy wrong? You seem to be hanging a hell of a lot on Aquinas (whose arguments might well be biased more towards purpose rather than design). But regardless of how Catholics think of him, Aquinas is but one in a long series of philosophers that stretch before and after him, and all authoritative sources of philosophy state quite clearly that the teleological argument can be associated with the argument from design. I’m afraid I am going to stick with them rather than with Chesterton (who was, after all, a novelist and poet, not a philosopher).
Is it really? I don’t have to admit any such thing because I have no idea what you are talking about. Just how is “irreducible complexity” used in software design and precisely how is that relevant to Behe’s (now discredited) arguments about irreducible complexity in biochemical pathways?
Reasoning can also be based on revealed truths. For example, I have two children. You now know something about me you could not have reasoned your way to, simply by revelation.
Hi buffalo
It works. I usually work on about three creative things at a time. My recent art project is with Fire. I’ve learned how to capture the smoke on paper and create …(can’t tell ya since it is a surprise.) The fire singed the tips of my long blonde hair and my green eyes saw flames. There is always an element of danger with fire but the Holy Spirit was definately present and saved me from harm. 
Alec, I do understand where you are coming from but I hope you won’t disregard what I wrote above. Here is my point of view, you already know I love science. Science is grand for popping wheelies just look at the Telsa -a fun economical joy ride but creativity takes a U turn and a whole new set of dynamics with a different venue for the artist, poet, fiction writer, musician who use nature (everything and anything) as their palette for inspiration. You have to have faith in the success of any worthwhile endeavor. It can be an emotional rollarcoster ride filled with screams of joy and frustation. Ahhh, it’s what is known as the muse musing with you.
Well I didn’t reason my way to that knowledge as you say, you revealed it to me. You could be lying, of course, as you also acknowledge.
I fully accept that Aquinas’s fifth way is more about purpose than design; and that it is a teleological argument. But that’s not where we started. You pulled me up for connecting the teleological argument to the argument from design, but I think I’ve shown that that is a conventional definition from authoritative philosophical sources and I am justifiued in identifying one with the other.