science and the supernatural

It is sometimes remarked that science by its nature rules out consideration of supernatural causes. (This principle is often invoked against bullshit, like intelligent design). But frankly, if this is true, it is true in a stranger sense than first appears.

Consider Hume's argument against miracles. Essentially, Hume argues that there can't be such a thing as a miracle, because miracles are by definition things which contradict the laws of nature. But if we ever see something which appears to contradict those laws - indeed if something ever does happen which contradicts those laws - then this would just mean that we were wrong about what the laws of nature were. Whatever the true laws of nature are, they do not admit of exceptions - that's the whole point.

To apply this to the question of supernatural causation: if there were to be something like a "supernatural cause," that would mean that this supernatural entity had entered into the causal order of things. And therefore it would be as subject to scientific investigation as any other element of the causal order. (And indeed, this all would make us wonder: is it really a supernatural cause? It is in this sense that the original statement might be true.)

Consider again Judson's claim (http://endlessrecombination.blogspot.com/2008/12/science.html):

"In schools, science is often taught as a body of knowledge — a set of facts and equations. But all that is just a consequence of scientific activity. Science itself is something else, something both more profound and less tangible. It is an attitude, a stance towards measuring, evaluating and describing the world that is based on skepticism, investigation and evidence."

In other words: the reason that intelligent design is unscientific is not that it is ruled out by definition; rather it is unscientific because there is no evidence for it.