That's where he doesn't get it. The supernatural is always a possible explanation, but where we accept it as a possibility, we stifle the search for natural explanations.
Case in point; it used to be thought that human disease was a consequence of sin, and that therefore the only efficacious way of curing it was prayer. The Black Death is a testimony tot eh effectiveness of that approach. Starting in about the 18th century, we started to look for naturalistic causes for disease, and now we accept that disease has naturalistic and not supernatural causes. As a result we've been able to find cures for many diseases, where previously supernaturalists came up with no effective treatment at all.
That is why we adopt methodological naturalism. And, of course, so does Colson. When he gets sick, he goes to a doctor, not a preacher.
Hello Doctor.
I do not think of creation as supernatural. I do think of it as reflecting certain principles and processes ordained by a super natural deity. It is those principles and processes that are the proper province of science.
When science dismisses the possibility that nature contains procedural references (principles and processes) it is denying the reality that I find most reasonable.
Random selection is not a scientifically defensible principle. Atheists who insist that evolution is random are doing theological dogmatics. I do not have a problem with their doing this if they are honest about their starting points.
The critical issue in this debate is that nature either does or does not reflect its uncaused cause. The Big Bang either contains the seeds of everything that has followed or everything that has followed exists by pure happenstance. That is the nature of the intellectual struggle we are engaged in.
Either there is purpose or everything is meaningless. Which universe do you choose to live in?
In point of fact, which universe is it possible to do science in? Only if reality exists by virtue of orderly structure is science possible.