[Dimensio]

Only God is natural. Everything else is a creation and thus supernatural.

I believe that you are redefining "natural" and "supernatural" to definitions not used by science. Redefining terms does not demonstrate your point, however.

If the evidence points to an outside influence in the development of living things, then so be it. Whereever the evidence leads that's science.

If the outside influence is outside of the fundamental properties of the universe, and thus not constrained by them, then this outside influence cannot be explained by science.

I say that to the extent that you can study God either directly or by inference through his actions past or present, He should be included in Science.

Throughout human history literally thousands of deities known as "gods" -- many of them mutually exclusive -- have been worshipped and acknowledged as a cause of events. To which particular deity do you refer, and why should that one specific deity be included in science to the exclusion of all others?

Now admittedly He doesn't subject Himself to laboratory procedures prefering to deal in matters of man's heart.

This would suggest that the deity to which you refer is not objectively testable, which would make it outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Emotional inferences are subjective, and not useful for science.

I think he does leave a considerable trail of evidence. But it's evidence of His choosing.

Please provide a means to test for this evidence.

[DannyTN]

"If the outside influence is outside of the fundamental properties of the universe, and thus not constrained by them, then this outside influence cannot be explained by science."

What are the fundamental properties of the Universe? If you don't study phenomenon with an open mind, then you may very well misunderstand fundamental properties.

"To which particular deity do you refer, and why should that one specific deity be included in science to the exclusion of all others?"

I don't say that a particular deity should be included. ID is not about which diety. ID is simply about looking at the evidence and concluding that the prevalent scientific explanation is a really poor fit at explaining the observable facts and that an influence (whether outside or inside) other than random mutations and copying errors must be responsible for the design of living creatures.

When we turn up science for which influence is real and which is not, then at that point which diety becomes science. I do, in fact, beleive that their is evidence that points to which diety. And that should be a scientific field of it's own, say the field of Diestic Science. But you aren't ready for that yet.

"Please provide a means to test for this evidence."

If you can't capture an influence/diety in a lab, then you study the way in interacts with observable evidence. If life forms appear suddenly in the fossil record without precursors that appears to be evidence of an intelligent influence of some sort beyond what science has defined as evolutionary factors.

To the extent that an influence/diety results interacts in ways other than creation of life form, study those interactions with the same scientific vigor that you would study anything else.

Two common interactions other than creation of life forms that are ascribed to one particular diety are eyewitness accounts of demonstrations of phenomenal power (miracles) and foreknowledge of human events (prophecy).

We know that there are recorded eyewitness events of demonstrations of phenomenal power (miracles). To the extent that these demonstrations can be studied, study them. A motor vehicle is going to look like a miracle to a first century man. Instantaneous healing of a man's ear also looks like a miracle, but maybe it's using technology we just don't have or understand yet.

Science should never exclude data points or observations that it can't explain. If it did, Science would never advance. Science only advances by developing explanations for data points that it previously couldn't explain.

"God did it" is not an adequate scientific explanation. But "This didn't just happen, something caused this, what?" and "What methods have been employed" and "How was this created" "How does this creation work" are all valid scientific questions.