Hmm - Joshua, I was all for agreeing with this, but then I ask myself what it actually means, in terms of demarcating science from pseudoscience, and wonder.
You can’t mean that science and creation are synonymous, for we’ve agreed that science studies only “nature” in a restricted sense of material causes (I’d add “regular,” but I think we’re still not converged on that). There is much in creation outside science, much of which many would describe as “pseudoscience” - the natures of angels, for example, or the providences of God, or the indwelling of the Spirit, or regeneration in Christ. Or even mind and human wisdom, if we agree they are non-material.
There is, of course, the (question-begging?) matter of “truth”, which distinguishes all that is real in creation, and in science. Here’s a quote from this evening’s reading:
“For Calvin, Divine Wisdom has the character of revelation. As it emanates from God it also reveals him. And as we are able, within radical limits, to perceive and understand it as Wisdom, even to investigate it, we are participants in it.” (Amrilynne Robinson, “Proofs”, in The Givenness of Things.
This leaves a clear distinction between the truths in creation, and the Creator (though the former points to the latter), but in what sense does it demarcate science from non0-science, or from pseudo-science? Not sure I can parse that.