I read the OP on uncommondescent, and your and @TedDavis comments. There is a lot there. I am in basic agreement with your position. But as Ted says " The definition of what counts as science and what doesn’t changes over time, for reasons that are not always simple " Our friend @Jon_Garvey wrote a post recently on Hump, in which he pointed out that the definition of MN has changed as science changes. The most recent change, in physics, was forced by the advent of Quantum Theory and Relativity. But, (and this is my take, not Jon’s) although the concepts of time slowing down, and particles being entangled might have seemed to be outside of MN a hundred years earlier, they were counted as science because they fit the constant criteria of scientific investigation that has been passed down through several centuries. And that is a confirmation of prediction from theory, verified by consistent and reproducible experiment or observation.
So even if the observer effect in quantum mechanics seems mystical, it is demonstrably scientifically real, and therefore it is accepted science. And of course being so, means that scientists (and not all of them have even now 80 years later have gotten this point) need to “move the goalposts” of the definition of MN to include things that were not previously part of materialism in any sense.
So, who knows what’s next? Jon has suggested that we might be on the verge of a new expansion of what we accept into the tent of MN, and I hopefully agree, And perhaps, this may include some aspects of our world that have previously been in the province of the spiritual or philosophical. But I do not believe that this will ever include theological issues, or matters of divinity. This is not because I dont believe that God is real; I do. Its because I do not believe that God is part of this natural world, but is its creator.
God has never been, is not now, and never will be a subject for scientific study. I state this as a theological principle of faith. We may find in our research that there is room for God, or pointers to God, or consistency with a creative God hypothesis, but God cannot be a hypothesis that can be tested by any of the accepted methods of science, even with a greatly expanded definition of MN. We need other methods, those of the theologians, historians, philosophers, and others to explore the nature of God. We need prayer, discernment and spiritual methods for that.
Recently there was a brief kerfuffle in the scientific community about a paper published in PLOS One, that used the term Creator in the text of the paper. I wrote a blog post stating that I agreed that such a word should never be used in a scientific paper, to which Jon disagreed to some extent. My opinion was not based on my faith, but had the same source as the fact that I have never considered prayer to be a part of my lab work, but do as part of my life work.
If we allow the definition of MN to expand along with our expansion of scientific paths of enquiry, but firmly retain our agreement that we will limit science to our discovery and understanding of Gods natural laws that govern this universe in lawful ways, I believe we will be following the path we are meant to follow to find the great Truth behind everything and be witness to God’s majesty.