To go back to the original point, if the supernatural is said to have some effect on our reality (such as God creating the world in six days) then those effects can certainly be scientifically analyzed and information gained, including information about the supposed supernatural cause.
Thanks for the link, very interesting article. I was most interested to see what preceded your quote, but I was a bit nonplussed.
Logically, if there are omnipotent powers in the universe, it is impossible to hold their effects constant, to “control” them in the scientific sense. An omnipotent power could interfere, or not interfere or interfere but make it look like it’s not interfering — that’s omnipotence for you!
I think this really misses the point. It’s not as if non-onmipotent supernatural entities can be regarded by science, after all.
I think the answer is simpler, and lies in the definition of supernatural entities. They do not have any presence in the observable natural world, and this is the reason they can’t be measured. Science is left with the natural by default. I agree with Taq in the sense that if the definition of God offered by a theist excludes the possibility of scientific measurement, science isn’t excluding it from its purview on its own volition. It would be interesting to see the text of the original document which included the words “impersonal” and “unsupervised”. I believe I would agree with Scott that they shouldn’t be included, but I think it could be fair for example to note that no signs have been found that evolution is either personal or supervised, as they certainly could be.