I don't see the logic in this. If the supernatural can affect the outcomes but in no way directly manifests itself either by choice or by constraint, why does that negate the value of the tests? Science works with what it has, and if at some point a "supernatural" occurence introduces a phenomenon that heretofore has never been observed, then science is perfectly capable of coming up with a "natural" explanation for that, too.
I would also ask again how it is that science, in generating terms to explain the known universe, has somehow eliminated or changed what in fact may be altogether supernatural in the first place. How do you know science is not simply in the business of ascribing "natural" terms to what is purely the activity of angels?
Science proceeds by trying to falsify hypotheses. If we consider the possibility that a supernatural being can influence the outcome of a test, the test has to be rejected because the level of certainty would become useless. Whether or not a supernatural influence is really active in the test is irrelevant, the possibility itself will reduce the level of certainty. The point is, how do we know the supernatural is being constrained? Trust in consistency is necessary.
Science works with what it has, and if at some point a "supernatural" occurence introduces a phenomenon that heretofore has never been observed, then science is perfectly capable of coming up with a "natural" explanation for that, too.
It is not the occurrence of a single anomaly that is the problem, but the inconsistency possible in each and every test run. If at the end of each test run you have to ask: "was that result truly representative or did God make it that way?" how do we convince ourselves it was honest run? If we trust the consistency despite the possibility, why bring the supernatural into it at all?
"I would also ask again how it is that science, in generating terms to explain the known universe, has somehow eliminated or changed what in fact may be altogether supernatural in the first place. How do you know science is not simply in the business of ascribing "natural" terms to what is purely the activity of angels.
We don't. By eliminating the question of the supernatural, trust in the outcomes of tests at least enables us to continue.
Challenge
I would like to see a proposal from creationists for a methodology that would enable us to include the supernatural in science. Within that proposal I would like to see a dry run experiment where the steps in the methodology are applied to some imaginary scientific investigation.
Are any of you creationists up to the challenge?