>>What’s supernatural got to do with it?<<
Your post:
>>The current definition excludes all alternatives other than naturalism.<<
That which is not natural is supernatural.
>>If I find a watch on the beach, I don’t assume it was created by a supernatural being. Neither do I assume it evolved.<<
Non sequitur.
You didn’t answer the question. How can something not based on “naturalism” be used, measured, defined and applied?
Is it supernatural when man designs something? I think that's neither natural nor supernatural.
And lots of fields of science deal with man's design of various items. So why exclude origin of species from scientific study of design just because we can't yet identify the designer? I don't have to know who designed the watch, to recognize it was designed.
Your twisted definitions are nothing but a self serving refuge to hide behind, rather than answer the legitimate quesions of what explains the data better. It's got the same legitimacy as when Obama declares the GW science settled and the debate over.