So what IS the dividing line between the natural and the supernatural? Who makes that decision and on what basis?
At one time much of what we take for granted would be considered supernatural. If the modern philosophy of ignoring what is labeled *supernatural* were applied in those days, much of scientific research would not have happened.
Choosing to ignore something or not research it because it's too difficult or can't be explained NOW is foolishness and the the height of arrogance and an impediment to science. How can progress be made by arbitrarily choosing to write something off simply because it's labeled supernatural?
Best synopsis of creationism/ID I've heard yet. I bet you didn't mean what you said.
The problem you have is that EVERY thing that has previously been labeled supernatural that has been studied to a reasonably complete understanding (rain, thunder, seasons etc etc) has been found to have a natural explanation. The fruits of this research is generally good.
The point is that saying 'god did it' is not a decent explanation. From a scientific point of view it's just a cop out.
Things held on faith (sans evidence) should be kept private. Otherwise intractable arguments in sue. For example there are three versions of the 10 commandments, which do you want in your courthouse? (Protestant, Catholic or Hebrew versions?)