[Mylo]

So how successful have theories that advocate an unknowable and unquantifiable supernatural entity as an explanation been in observing and predicting the universe?

Seems there are plenty of competing hypothesis as to the identity, motive, race, creed, and color of the creator; but no useful predictions or observations- and no way of objectively sorting through the competing and contradictory claims.

However MATERIAL explanation of quantifiable and predictable natural forces seems to be HIGHLY SUCCESFUL in formulating theories for observing and predicting the universe. All technological and scientific advancements of the human race have been through MATERIAL and SCIENTIFIC explanations; not through supernatural and theological explanations.

Can anyone tell me ANY scientific theory that is not based upon material and natural phenomenon? You cannot because there are none; and ID won't be the first.

[itsahoot]

You forgot to address this issue, concerning one of your own.....

Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard. "Our willingness," confessed Lewontin, "to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism ... materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."