Here you go.
Take a look at this site.
http://www.setterfield.org/relativityandc.html
What is observable and quantifiable can be interpreted in more than one way.
The 'scientific process' is limited *by definition* to natural explanations. Not the best 'a priori' limit to place on your acceptable explanations when supernatural vs natural is the question you are trying to answer.
It is impossible to find evidence of the supernatural in science, *by definition*.
Don't be deceived.
But it is the best way to build an airplane. Or understand the physical Universe's rules.
"It is impossible to find evidence of the supernatural in science>"
And why faith in such things for me remains quite elusive.
No, not all of the evos are trying to answer that. Many of them have either taken a materialistic worldview as a given, assumed (for the nonce) that the existence of God is irrelevant--(if God interferes enough to make Himself known, then I can't count on "good enough" results to make predictions anyway, so I might as well assume "no God" in the meantime), or they are only concerned with the material aspect of things *in the first place*. "Whether of not God exists, I'm not looking at right now. Just consider the juxtabronchial organ secretions in the higher molluscs!"
It is impossible to find evidence of the supernatural in science, *by definition*.
Generally yes, unless hitherto unforeseen results cause you to question the whole philosophical underpinnings.
Don't be deceived.
Reg flag in front of a bull. Ask them to engage in more rigorous parsing of their logical positions.
Cheers!