> Let us suppose that it is possible to "petition the Lord with prayer", to quote Morrison.
That's obviously possible.
What's subject to debate is whether that action in the material universe produces any change in outcomes in the material universe.
> We can test two populations, ones who receive stranger prayer, and ones who do not, and see if one population gets better treatment. We can look at the epidemiology to see if people from one religion, who practice healing prayer, have different health outcomes than those who do not. (This is tricky but not intractable because there is more than one factor at play.)
Sure.
> Thus we have the ability to detect if there is something outside of the current model.
Science is all about detecting things outside the current model, creating a hypothetical models which include those things, validating whether they explain observed realities better than the current model, and updating models.
OTOH, once it does so, the new model is still, by definition, a naturalistic model which excludes the supernatural. If intercessory prayer has an influence on health effects, not only can science detect it -- but by detecting it can quantify it (even if the necessary model is one of changes in the probability distribution of outcomes, not a simple direct consistent change in outcomes) and incorporate it into a naturalistic model.
> At this point, global flooding of the sort discussed would have to be a supernatural event. There is no place for the water to come from or go to.
No, it wouldn't. The lack of knowledge of the details of the mechanism or explanation for something which is nevertheless an element of the best model does not suddenly make the incompletely-explained thing supernatural; otherwise, things like the Planck constant are "supernatural".
That's obviously possible.
What's subject to debate is whether that action in the material universe produces any change in outcomes in the material universe.
> We can test two populations, ones who receive stranger prayer, and ones who do not, and see if one population gets better treatment. We can look at the epidemiology to see if people from one religion, who practice healing prayer, have different health outcomes than those who do not. (This is tricky but not intractable because there is more than one factor at play.)
Sure.
> Thus we have the ability to detect if there is something outside of the current model.
Science is all about detecting things outside the current model, creating a hypothetical models which include those things, validating whether they explain observed realities better than the current model, and updating models.
OTOH, once it does so, the new model is still, by definition, a naturalistic model which excludes the supernatural. If intercessory prayer has an influence on health effects, not only can science detect it -- but by detecting it can quantify it (even if the necessary model is one of changes in the probability distribution of outcomes, not a simple direct consistent change in outcomes) and incorporate it into a naturalistic model.
> At this point, global flooding of the sort discussed would have to be a supernatural event. There is no place for the water to come from or go to.
No, it wouldn't. The lack of knowledge of the details of the mechanism or explanation for something which is nevertheless an element of the best model does not suddenly make the incompletely-explained thing supernatural; otherwise, things like the Planck constant are "supernatural".