I haven't read the whole thread but I have a few questions of the opening post.
Isn't the use of the term "supernatural" in the OP and elsewhere the use of an unscientific term and thus to argue against it is inherently an invalid argument?
What is the definition of "supernatural"?
The OP posits that IDers claim God or aliens intefered via supernatural means, but if there was an intervention in the physical world, would it not by definition be part of the physical world?
If you are to reject something, you must examine it first with the possibility it could be true. So assuming it is true for purpose of considering the concept, that God or aliens intervened somehow, then by definition the mechanism for intervention would be real, and if real, part of reality, whether you call it physical or otherwise.
To make the argument that if an agent did design, it had to be supernatural and so it did not happen is a totally internally inconsistent argument, at odds with itself, and just wrong. It's a fallacy to posit something like that.
No, from a science perspective, one must assume that anything called "supernatural" is in fact by definition "natural" or a better term "part of reality" since natural can connote different things. For example, are the principles of quantum entanglement "natural"?
Well, I suppose so but the term natural can be misleading.
Back to the point though, if someone argues that something cannot be because it is supernatural, they are making a specious argument devoid of scientic rationale. If it is, the label of what it is does not matter, it is part of reality whether you want to call reality nature, physical, or the X factor. The label does not mean anything. The meaning of the process does.
This message has been edited by randman, 06-01-2005 02:47 AM
™ Version 4.2