If observations can be made, how does a supernatural explanation fall outside the realm of the scientific method?
In other words, if a supernatual explanation leaves an observable footprint, then it can be tested via the scientific method.
The problem is that the observations used to test a theory must be compared against valid deductions from the theory. IOW we're saying something to the effect of, "if this theory is true then it follows that certain facts A, B and C should be observed to obtain, and other facts X, Y and Z would be prohibited from occuring."
Once you have a supernatural element as a causal factor in a theory it would be impossible to deduce anything from the theory because by it's very natural the supernatural cause can effect any chosen factual result whatsoever.
It's also important to recognize that scientific theories can never be tested in isolation. They can only be tested in the context of other theories, assumptions and laws. Even in making the simplest observation with a microscope I assume the laws of optics (but many other things besides). One of the most important things assumed in any test is that all well confirmed scientific laws apply, especially the laws of physics and chemistry. In short a theory or a valid test of a theory can not entail that anything "impossible" occur. Yet is in the very nature of a supernatural force that it can effect the naturally impossible. Suddenly then our theory is being tested in effective isolation from the background laws of physics and chemsitry. It's difficult enough to test theories as is, but when you obviate these severe constraints it's effectively impossible.
"In other words, if a supernatual explanation leaves an observable footprint, then it can be tested via the scientific method."
Total BS. You don't have a clue what science even is. You can't apply science when natural laws are indefinite.
And this is where natural evolution breaks down, they cannot go from step 3 to step 4 because of the length of time required. Thus it is improper to speak of natural evolution as a theory, it should more correctly be described as an hypothesis. If the evolutionists would present their ideas as such there would be no problem. It is when they insist that it is fact that they go beyond proper science and are making a creedal statement.
Likewise:
In other words, if an EVOLUTIONARY explanation leaves an observable footprint, then it can be tested via the scientific method.
Good luck with step #4!
The best I've seen the 'E' side come up with is something's that they SAY are comparable, somewhat.