I'm merely suggesting that the data is ever changing (John Hardly)
if science does not disprove the supernatural but insists on teaching as though it does (John Hardly)

John, you talk about something you do not understand to start with.

The data are not ever changing. Each student studying an experimental science will as a part of his study have to repeat old experiments just to refind the same data he can read in his books. What happens is that new data are added which are not at odds (usually not) with the old data, but with old theories. The old theories have been able to predict beautifully the old data (and can still under the right circumstances) but cannot predict/explain new data. That's when a new theory is needed. This new theory will still make the same predictions for the realm of the old data for these do not vanish in the thin air and do not change. But the new theory may allow to understand why the old theory (example: Newtonian physics) is still a brilliant theory for low velocities and big masses but should be replaced by better theories for either very high velocities or very small masses. But the replacing theories make the identical (for practical purposes) predictions say for the curve of a cannonball.

It is not at all the business of science to prove or disprove the supernatural. Science starts with the assumption that there is nothing supernatural (in our daily lives and laboratories). If supernatural forces would at a daily basis interfere with the laws of the world then there could be no natural laws. The quest is how far can we go without making any supernatural assumption. You'll find that even scientists who, in their private lives, are religious, will in their work as scientists not claim supernatural forces (well, there are exceptions as some intelligent design people, but nobody in science takes them serious).

A question like 'how could life on Earth have originated?' has a lot of extrascientific responses like 'god willed it', but such a response is the abrupt end of a research endeavour for it does not allow any meaningful test and cannot be refuted by data. A real scientific program could look at the probable atmospheric conditions billion years ago, could think of lightnings, comets etc. as triggers of early self replicating molecules.

Scientists in their jobs just do not care about the supernatural. They never set out to disprove it or prove it, they just try how far the approach without assuming supernatural influence carries. And if they can explain (not in all detail yet, but in general) how species can have evolved from self replicating molecules they are happy. What they say is: I can explain it without any supernatural assumption and not that they have disproved creation. Creation is not their business.

In Newton's calculations, the planets were not in stable orbits and for the solar system to remain stable, a little tip from god, now and then, was necessary to bring a planet back into the correct orbit. A French scientist did improve Newton's calculations on the planet paths and found that with this improvement god's interference was not necessary to come to stable orbits. When Napoleon heard of this he asked the scientist whether this meant that there is no god. The reply was that god is an 'unneccessary hypothesis'. That sums it up pretty well. Napoleon, like you, thinks in terms of prove or disprove of god (creation). The scientist told him implicitely that his question was nonsensical and told him that he didn't need god for his theory to work. The question whether there still is a god and a creation is outside of science. One could explain all creation without god and still believe that a god made the laws that allow for a creation without any supernatural interference. These are just two completely different things.

If a pupil comes into a non-religious school with biology as a subject she can safely expect to be taught the present theories from science and not those from creation. Scientific theories are by their very nature godless theories and I consider the demand that in science fields theories needing supernatural interference may be taught as well just as stupid and nonsensical like if a mother sends her kid into a religious school and demands that he may not join in prayer.

The 'intelligent design' school of thoughts only pretends to have a scientific interest. There are a lot of debates on the field of evolution and many competing theories, but there is no 'intelligent design' theory being taken serious except among a small circle of religiously interested. There is just no real debate, noone in science takes these people serious.

Wolfgang