[narby]

That's why critiques of scientific explanations for human origins and the rise of various forms of life, which incorporate the supernatural, should not be ridiculed for being unscientific. The subject matter is broader than the natural sciences. Science is too narrow a tool for the study of these subjects.

OK, let's parse this.

If "science is too narrow a tool for the study of these subjects", then doesn't it follow that critiques of explanations for human origins that include the supernatural are therefore "unscientific".

What you're asking for is the redefinition of science, at the behest of those who are outside the field.

It's no wonder scientists take offense at such intrusion.

[Aquinasfan]

What you're asking for is the redefinition of science, at the behest of those who are outside the field.

The root of the problem is a category error. The subject of the origin and development of life is ultimately a philosophical and theological one. It can also be studied scientifically, but there are questions regarding life that cannot be studied scientifically in principle.

For example, science cannot define life, scientifically. And it remains for philosophy to determine the definition of science itself. These definitions are beyond the scope of science, and fall into the sciences of philosophy and theology. Theology is the queen of the sciences and philosophy is its handmaid.