Just like the title says. Unicorns can't be proven to exist but I don't consider myself an Aequuscornist (Away from horse with horn if my latin roots serve me correctly). Why should a god hypothesis have such sway as to describe me? Metaphysical Naturalist is a much better term (at least for me).
If something supernatural exists, that means it should be able to be measured. Whether or not we have an instrument capable of measuring it remains to be seen. After all we didn't always have geiger counters but there was something around those uranium deposits making people sick. It was considered a supernatural occurance but now we know the mechanism causing it. Therefore I make no claim as to whether or not something exists, only whether observed phenomena point to it's existence. For example, our observations about genetics and the fossil record point to evolution. If magic were recorded to exist, it would have to have an underlying natural mechanism that allows it to exist. If ghosts exist, they can be measured. We might not have the necessary instruments, but if we did then we'd be able to recorde them. Some might ask about EVP and those blurry photographs. A simpler explanation is our brain being good at identifying patterns. What allows for the photons given off by spirits to be captured by camera film and yet lets them evade the human eye? Are they hitting our retinas and our brains simply dismiss them? If we want to think of the supernatural as real then these are the questions we need to be asking.
Current facts, and by facts I mean such as "things fall down" or a "rolling ball eventually stops" or "people who live near a certain location in the woods are always getting sick," are explained by things we make up such as "gravity" or "friction" or "ionizing radiation from a uranium deposit." If you think about it, "god did it" is another thing we can make up to explain these things. But "god did it" lacks predictive power. If I know the properties of a certain thing such as surface roughness, which are again are qualifiers we make up to describe what has been observed about said thing, then applying the roughness to my friction theory, I can predict an observation, otherwise known as a fact. To say god makes the ball stop rolling says nothing for the behavior of the next several balls I roll.
We can apply this to intelligent design (ID) vs evolution. Given: there is a species moths living in a forest. Within this species is a dark grey and a light grey variety. Normally there are equal portions of light and dark real estate so they can both survive equally well. You might say that these two were intelligently designed for that habitat. But via evolutionary theory, it is hypothesized that there are light and dark grey moths because all other less fit varieties died out. Say we find the remains of past less fit varieties (which were a startling shade of electric blue). It's looking good for evolution as it predicted the extinction of less favorable traits for the given surrounding.
Using the predictive power of evolutionary theory we can say that if something were to happen to the surrounding or a mutation is more benificial to survival, that trait will be passed on. So say a nearby volcano spreads a layer of light grey ash across everything. Of course the light grey variety still blends in while the dark grey stick out. The birds who like to eat these moths have an easy time finding the dark grey ones and after a while they all get eaten. Now the species consists of only light grey moths.
But say a few dark grey moths were born with a mutation that allowed them to move really really fast. They would evade the birds. They now have a good survival strategy. The speedy survivors will pass that trait on to their children. Eventually you'll get two separate species of moths, the dark fast ones, and the light stealty ones. Evolution predicted that a new species could emerge. ID says that any new species would have to be designed by a designer (if it says new species can emerge at all). Evolution is supported in this case and we have no choice but to reject ID. (Note that these two theories are mutually exclusive but not a dichotomy. Disproving one will not necessarily prove the other but proving one will disprove the other or so ID proponents would like to believe.)
Some theists do display scientific rigor. They change their hypothesis to match observations. The literal interpretation of every creation myth falls short when it comes to the age and observed formation of the universe. So theists change from a literal view to god made the big bang. Maybe some day we will be able to measure divinity if it exists. At that point, however, it will cease to be a supernatural phenomenon and will be considered part of the natural world. That's why I call myself a Metaphysical Naturalist: there is no supernatural.
