Fraggle, science has already been used to study things like prayer, ghosts, telekinesis, telepathy, and precognition. You just need a good experiment.
Indeed. People present possible evidence and scientists test it. It generally fails the initial test but when it does not, they go on to more rigorous testing and it fails that. The most typical flaws in the evidence are fraud (not always on the part of the person presenting the evidence, to be fair), poorly designed experiments, and a tenuous grasp of the principles of science.
To nit-pick: if such a thing were possible, then would the 'supernatural' universe still be supernatural, or would it now be a new natural universe with different rules than our own?
If it were merely a new portion of the natural universe that we had never observed, then of course we could study it. But if it were truly the domain of powerful creatures who deliberately deceive us for their own amusement, then I'm not sure what we would call it or how we would react. Americans claim to love freedom, so it would be interesting to see how my people would react to the discovery that there really is someone who controls them. We could find out how they feel about the famous divine misfortunes that befell the characters in the Bible if they realized that their own children could suffer the same fate for merely rebelling against a newer, crueler and more unforgiving parental authority.
Can science test/model the truly supernatural?
We can (and do) test for the particular kind of supernatural universe that the majority of religionists assert exists: one whose denizens and forces whimsically interfere with the behavior of the natural universe. So far there is no evidence for this existence. But if the supernatural universe is invisible to us and there is no interaction between it and the natural universe, then, at least as of this writing, there is probably no way to test for it. If, by definition, there is no evidence for something, then science cannot test for it. But of course if there is no evidence then the possibility of its existence is a rather moot point, more suitable for philosophers and daydreamers than scientists, who are already plenty busy.
If there are gods and all they can do is observe us using their fantastically superior powers and/or instruments, then I suppose I might be peevish about the invasion of my privacy, but other than that they would have no effect. And since I have no way to know that they are out there because there is no evidence for their existence, I'm not going to worry about the invasion of privacy either. The odds are enormous that they are a fantasy, so I'll spend more of my energy worrying about being hit by a meteorite, which is at least slightly more probable.
But how does a scientist determine truth from theory?
"Truth" is not a scientific word. A theory is in fact the closest that science comes to the truth, and the word does not mean the same thing in science that it does in mathematics, detective work, or ordinary vernacular. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and peer-reviewed exhaustively, and found to be
true beyond a reasonable doubt.
In mathematics a theory is absolutely true, in detective work it is merely a very promising hunch, and in ordinary vernacular its meaning ranges wildly from speculation to hypothesis. I have often railed at scientists for using language that seems almost deliberately crafted to thwart understanding by laymen.
Re the OP: how come these roving creationist spammers so often and so characteristically cannot punctuate?
There are plenty of creationists who are well educated, articulate, and good writers. They practice intellectual dishonesty in order to fool the more gullible members of the public. My wife and I went to a debate between a so-called creation "scientist" and a real scientist as members of CSICOP 35 years ago. The scientist, as is typical of the profession, was only a moderately good communicator and not very persuasive. The creationist was a practiced con man who was hard not to admire. He had carefully combed through the fossil record for specimens that supported his hypothesis, and presented them as though they were representative samples. And he presented as "peer-reviewed research" student papers from third-rate universities, generally church-affiliated like Ambassador College.
These people carefully stay away from places like SciForums. We would make hash out of them.
it is a lot to say that faith is irrational, because it has a straight line of logic.
There is such a thing as rational faith, based on evidence like any other rational belief. My wife has been loyal, honest and supportive for 33 years, so I have a
rational faith that she will continue to be so. But belief in fables told by one's parents because one loves them is
irrational faith.
If one heavily examines science it always at some point must lead in a circle.
Your choice of metaphor is more than a little inscrutable.
The ultimate question is: how is there order in the universe? Where did it come from? Science cannot answer it, faith can.
You seem to be of the opinion that science has discovered all of the answers that it will ever discover, so none of the remaining mysteries will ever be solved. What makes you think that? It is an illogical opinion, since science has been solving increasingly difficult mysteries for half a millennium. Hypotheses about the Big Bang keep getting more detailed and complex, and explain more of our observations of the universe. Perhaps you young people will live to see it finally unraveled.
Do creationists have a role in science? Well if there are questions they and they alone can answer then I'd say so.
The creationist who was sent to the CSICOP forum to argue with the real scientist was chosen by the creationist community for that purpose and therefore was presumably one of the best they've got. He did nothing but lie and cheat; he was one of the most dishonorable people I've ever encountered. With people like that in charge of the movement, they will never answer any questions, at least not honestly.
