I love the term supernatural. If it is a phenomenon that occurs and is inexplicable, by current standards, it is still a phenomenon.
OTOH, if it is not observable, by current standards, it is not a phenomenon. It is not a very useful term.
But folks sure bandy it about pretty loosely.
DK
With respect, this is word salad--I cannot fathom your point here.
Atoms are not directly observable, but close scientific observation of a range of phenomena allow us to infer, not only their existence, but their properties, and to make accurate predications of their behaviour.
What 'unobservable phenomena' do you mean to indicate?
I love the term supernatural. If it is a phenomenon that occurs and is inexplicable, by current standards, it is still a phenomenon.
OTOH, if it is not observable, by current standards, it is not a phenomenon. It is not a very useful term. The reason ID is accused of invoking supernatural causes is precisely because it doesn't deal with phenomena. It examines a state -- the existence of complex objects -- and posits a history that cannot be studied or described or subjected to any kind of evidentiary search.
If ID produces an actual hypothesis, a history that can be tested for congruency with the laws of physics and chemistry, then it can claim to be a science.