I have a problem with these people in that they arbitrarily limit what science can potentially explain. The so called supernatural remains supernatural only as long as there’s no metric by which to measure it. Once a metric is discovered the supernatural becomes the natural.
The limits on science are not arbitrary. Science cannot study the supernatural. IDolators like to claim that people are arbitrarily limiting science to testable hypotheses about the natural world, but those limitations come from the nature of science.
You cannot make a testable hypothesis about the supernatural because it isn’t bound by natural laws. Without anything implicitly lawlike, there’s nothing predictable, and no tests are possible.
It’s true that things once considered supernatural are now seen as natural, but this is precisely what ID advocates rail against in the Wedge Document and in the Kangaroo Court two springs ago. ID is an attempt to redefine science, and that is DaveScot’s problem.