I think, just maybe, I do understand what you are getting at MEH. Maybe I can help sort out some of the confusion (maybe not ).
You are saying there is evidence for the "supernatural" and that evidence is everything that the creator created. I think this is a pretty normal theistic position.
Other than personal feelings, I don't think there is too much concern about that here.
However, the argument continues about the relationship between your position and MN. One side argues that MN doesn't have a way of including the unobservable you argue that it can add something important. I think it comes down to the following:
MEH writes:
That is to say an addition of motivation, purpose, and a validation of (yes) a priori beliefs. Are these additions important? I believe so, but I wont waste time arguing about them here.
There is, of course, a huge problem with this. It is exactly the recognition that we are all humans and have a priori beliefs that the process of science trys to handle. The addition of a priori beliefs has been a risk and always will be a risk. It colors the research and potentially the results. Relianace on the observable is there to help to reduce this risk.
™ Version 4.2
