crashfrog writes:
We clearly mean two very different things when we say "supernatural."
...snip...If something can be substantiated and detected by natural, physical evidence, then it must be, by definition, natural.
It seems we can describe the difference as follows. By supernatural, you mean totally unrelated to the natural, whereas I mean beyond the natural domain, but still possibly interacting with the natural world.
My definition allows for a supernatural creator. Yours apparently does not. This simplifies matters. Whatever word you want to use, the science forums do (IMO) permit consideration of a divine creator to the universe, who (by definition) interacts with the natural world by creating it. You don't call this supernatural, as far as I can tell; which makes this simply a teminological issue.
Creationists are not appealing to the supernatural by your use of the word, since they are in fact saying that the creator interacts with the natural world and that one can infer details of the creator and the creative process from examination of the natural world. I guess this makes the creator "natural", by your use of the term; but in any case it is certainly permitted in the science forums.
Added in edit. What is required in the science forums... for
everyone .. is not the particular viewpoint or conclusion: it is that they address the matter in the light of physical evidence. Those who find some other basis for discussion more fruitful have other forums available.
Cheers -- AdminSylas
This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-19-2005 09:33 PM