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.
>>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<<
OK, same question. How can we use and apply ID? What scientific principles could we take away from it?
I have already easily handled and dismisssed AGW using the science framework, so that chimera does not help you.