Then you may be displeased to learn that you have made a mistatement. Here is what scientist Richard Lewontin said on the issue....
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin
Do you see? It is NOT the theory, facts or evidence that drives his rules. It is the philosophical presupposition. And unless you are a famous scientist like he is I'd say that he speaks for the community moreso than you do.
Look, I agree that what you say is the way it SHOULD be, but the guys you look to are doing it the OPPOSITE of the way you think it should be done.
As far as me proposing a "supernatural hypothesis" goes, many have been proposed and verified at least to the extent of their naturalistic counterparts. The trouble is not that we have failed to propose valid ideas- its that the Dr. R. Lewontins of this world refuse in advance to consider them. They would prefer the most outlandish naturalistic hypothesis to the most intitutive theistic one. And somehow they have sold otherwise smart guys like yourself on the idea that this constitutes "objectivity".
PS- Your example is anchronistic. Materialism was not even named before Newton and gravity. His theory was already part of the "natural world" long before the "classical dictum of amterialism" was ever codified.
I don't care how important a scientist he was (and he did do some important work) Lewontin is wrong here. Also, never forget Lewontin was a communist first and a scientist second. Anything he says about philosophy must be viewed in that light.
Look, I agree that what you say is the way it SHOULD be, but the guys you look to are doing it the OPPOSITE of the way you think it should be done.
What they say or believe is not relevant. What scientists do (in terms of the ideas they actually utilize or implicate in their research) is what matters. That is what determines the content of science, and nature of this content determines the nature of science, and the dicta of what compromises "good" or "proper" theories.
Those theories that scientists find useful in organizing their research, framing and solving scientific problems, and so on, are the ones that they will use. You can't get around that. Sure there will be various prejudices tied to the ruling assumptions (and the dominant theories) at any one time, but these won't keep scientists from using an idea that's useful. Since you can't say that a theory used by scientists to do science isn't "scientific," a deviant theory (that has been widely adopted) will inevitably change the assumptions about what does or doesn't qualify as "science". There isn't any getting around that either.
You're just trying to avoid the obvious: That the prejudice against creationistic science doesn't (in the end) derive from philosophical bias, but from the fact that creationism doesn't work (as science -- I'm a cautious creationist myself philosophically). I suspect you are like most creationists (at lest the more sophisticated ones). Deep down you realize that modern creationism has utterly failed to produce a coherent and useful scientific theory of any kind, and you fear that it will never be able to. Therefore you're desperate to exempt creationists from the standard that applies to any normal scientist: "Put up or shut up."
PS- Your example is anchronistic. Materialism was not even named before Newton and gravity. His theory was already part of the "natural world" long before the "classical dictum of amterialism" was ever codified.
Huh? By "classical materialism" I had in mind Greek atomism. This certainly did come before Newton, by a millennia or so! If my example is bad, how do you explain the contemporary objections to Newton's gravitation as "occult"? How do you explain that no one before Newton (I believe I'm correct in saying) ever proposed a natural force that acted without physical contact between bodies?
In any case there are plenty of other examples. Both Galilean and Newtonian science, for instance, were based on the assumption that space was euclidian. This metaphysical assumption was abandoned when useful and fruitful theories emerged that required it to be abandoned. For hundreds of years the notion of a "vacuum" was rejected as "unphilosophical," but this objection too was brushed aside when the kinetic theory of gases, and other considerations, rendered vacuums useful notions.
There are innumerable theories accepted today that would have once, and in some cases not so very long ago, been considered as inherently "unscientific," or as standing in violation of some dicta defining good, proper or acceptable scientific theories.
So, back to the main point, it's pointless to whine about what's "allowed" in science. Anything is allowed if you can show it works. If you think "supernatural" considerations should be allowed in scientific thinking and problem solving, then fine. Show us how that's gonna work.