I would have to disagree. Science wants the supernatural to be something they can touch and feel. Sorry, it don't work that way.
Science can investigate a supernatural claim if there is evidence to work with, science can for example prove that there is no paranormal forces acting in the areas of â€˜spoon bendingâ€™ (i.e. Uri Geller), Astrology, Homoeopathy, water divining, etc.Â The difficulty is in categorically stating that a phenomena is an act or god or it is natural, how can one tell with certainty and how would one eliminate the natural especially if itâ€™s a new area of research. The default position is natural, that is the only workable solution to allow science to progress.
Example 1). A preacher, on the 700 club. Had cancer. They showed video of his failing health. When he went to the doctors, they told him the cancer was all through his body and that chemo might give him a few extra weeks, but it would also cause more suffering. So he decided against it.
He continued to preach, and his sermons were taped. You could see him go from someone who did not look sick, to someone who was very sick and had to be on oxygen. When he could not preach, and had to stay home. his wife video shot his condition. He took off his shirt, and he looked like someone from a third world country that was starving to death. He had huge tumors all over his body, and all this was shown on t.v.. It was gross.
His church, plus several other churches were praying for him. It was down to the point where his life was in days or even hours. As the cancer started eating through his neck. But, one night, several people were awakened from their sleep. And felt that the preacher needed to be prayed for, in which they did. From that day forward, he got better. And now he is cancer free, and none of medical science can explain it.
The point is, no one in the naturlistic scientific field will accept this as a supernatural healing because it's not something they can touch, or feel. Even though this healing is all documented, including how sick this guy was. Science will never know the truth on this subject because they really don't want to know. And they really don't want to know God either.
Example: 2) While listening to the radio, a preacher was preaching, and told about an occasion (an event of a past service he did), where he was holding a service, where 6 doctors attended, who were atheist (he knew these doctors would be there). And he wanted them to know the Lord. So he prayed and prayed about it. The time came for him to do the service, and during the service, a child was healed of a leg being to short (the leg grew right in front of their eyes). All six doctors saw it because they sat on the very front row. They even admitted to seeing it. Out of the six, only one accepted it as an act of God. The others found excuses and walked out of the service when the alter call was given.
What point does this prove? People will only believe what they want to believe. It has nothing to do with evidence. They all saw, and only one believed. It works the same way with science. They all know there is actual evidence for creation and God. For if not, why do so many waste time figuring out ways to discredit it?
Then there's that nobel prize. It's already a known fact that the people who vote that prize to someone don't always vote it to the one that really should recieve it. And this has happened several times. But people that should recieve have also recieved the prize. So it's not always a deserving award. Has any christians recieved it for accomplishments in the fields they work in? So God is not even on the list. And neither are His people.
Finding evidence of god certainly would rock the world and not just the scientific one!
Finding things science canâ€™t explain (immediately) is to be expected, it is often said that for every new answer, ten more questions are raised.
I am sceptical of creating matter from sound, as sound travels through a medium (air, water, solid).Â I would need to have a link to read to understand this claim.Â But I think if there is merit in the claim a Nobel prize would be in order for the scientist proving such.