The discovery that the earth was round pre-dates the development of the scientific method by two millenia - the ancient Greeks found the evidence a few centuries BC.

God: science has contributed no new knowledge.

Bible stories: How? For example the creation account in Genesis was regarded as metaphorical at least as far back as St Augustine's time, 1600 years ago (Augustine supports what he calls a literal interpretation, but that means that each thing in genesis has a specific real life counterpart - so each of seven days corresponds to some kind of undefined epoch). Revelations is clearly metaphorical if you read up on the obvious contemporary references it contains. American Evangelical style biblical literalism is a heresy of the modern era - hardly a sign that scientific knowledge is encouraging progress.

That said, I do not think the idea that science incorporates a lot of knowledge from oral sources is false. It is based on ideas developed from pre-scientific ideas - ancient greek philosophy, the Christian idea of a universe that follows laws etc. - but that is hardly surprising as ideas rarely appear from nowhere.

You might want to read up on the development of the scientific method, specifically the ordered-universe hypothesis of people like Johannes Kepler which led to it.

If you're truly serious about science as I think you want to be, you might also want to revise that list of yours, as it suggests less of an interest in science itself, and more of scientism and naturalism which are both circular philosophies in the pop-science Dawkins crusade.

Furthermore, to define scientific progress as "a story of overcoming verbal traditions" might show that you have something to learn of the study of ancient history, specifically the accuracy and role of oral tradition in knowledge. You might also want to read up on the laws of evidence.

Some people want to appropriate science as some kind of vehicle in their own personal war against religion, and I don't think you can rationally make it that. Science has no interest at all in, or ability to study anything beyond the natural. Read a few quotes from Carl Sagan if you're still not convinced.

"Science has no interest at all in, or ability to study anything beyond the natural."

Science doesn't like being anthropomorphized.

I mean that only partially in jest. You mean "science" here as shorthand for "people who follow the natural philosophy known as 'science'". I'll call those people 'scientists', as is the normal practice.

The thing is, there are scientists who investigate putative supernatural events, such as ESP in its various forms, or supernatural events like stigmata from a stone sculpture.

This is possible because some supernatural events affect the natural world. If someone says they can use dowsing to detect a buried bottle of water, then the success is part of the natural world. If during unblinded tests they can find the water while during blinded tests they cannot, then it's likely that any success is not due to a supernatural agent but to to the internal knowledge of the dowser.

Similarly, some claim that water molecules can be influenced by thought. (Eg, the film 'What the Bleep Do We Know'.) Such claims can be tested, which puts them in the natural world.

However, other supernatural events, such as received wisdom, might have no impact on the natural world. If you say the god Mxyzptlk told you that left-handed people should not eat soup, then there's nothing that science can do or say about it.

While if you say that Mxyzptlk told you that William the Conqueror in 1072 liked to smoke Cuban cigars and eat macadamia nuts while watching Game of Thrones, then science still can't say if Mxyzptlk does or doesn't exist, but can show that such an event was ahistorical. It is much more likely that Mxyzptlk doesn't exist, or that Mxyzptlk told you a lie.

Going back to your phrase "Science has no interest at all in, or ability to study anything beyond the natural". What you say is true. If something has no impact on the natural word, then there's nothing that science can do or say about it. But the vast majority of supernatural event also have a natural component, and those real-world effects are in the domain of science.

Are you limiting yourself to only those events with no real-world effect? Or do you want to include supernatural events like a global flooding, which would leave physical traces had it occurred?

Science is only applicable to physical phenomena with physical causes due to consistent natural law; "supernatural" is a term for things that don't meet that description. At most -- e.g., for physical phenomena with nonphysical causes, or causes that are not governed by consistent natural law -- a scientific approach to supernatural will simply identify gaps in the ability to construct a scientific model no different than if the governing natural law were not correctly identified out the physical causes were outside our current ability to detect.

The issue is not the interest of scientist, is the applicability and function of the method known as "science".

Global flooding isn't inherently a supernatural event, and can be investigated with science, but science cannot, by its very nature, address any supernatural cause, ask it can do is produce a natural model of causation.

Let us suppose that it is possible to "petition the Lord with prayer", to quote Morrison. For example, do prayers from strangers help someone recover from an illness?

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.)

Thus we have the ability to detect if there is something outside of the current model. Detecting failures of the current model is part of science, even when it it cannot produce a better model other than "here there be dragons." What's at issue is that so far those gaps seem to get smaller and smaller the more we look into them. Hence the phrase "God of the gaps."

We of course have many examples of thing which were outside of the then-current understanding of science. The "ultraviolet catastrophe" is a classic example. The irreconcilability of general relativity and quantum mechanics is another.

But we did not call that "supernatural", even though when we knew there was a gap in our understanding.

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. There is no physical trace of such an event. Therefore, it would either require planetary engineering of the sort more appropriate for science fiction, or some sort of magical or divine intervention.

> 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 has to be mostly in jest, right? Science has nothing at all to do with the fantasies you describe. However, scientists may study the human mind, and try to describe why it clings to irrational flights of fancy like that. So if the human mind is considered to be separate from nature, then there's a concrete example of scientists studying something 'not in nature'.

I simply regard religion as a set of myths and legends. This is the basis of including God and religion in that list. Otherwise I really don't care about what voices people what to listen to and stories people want to tell.

> - Flat Earth

To add on to what the sibling poster said, the Earth was widely accepted as round by at least some cultures by at least 500 BC, due to overwhelming and easily observable natural evidence that the Earth was round.

- The shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon is a circle.

- The further you travel south, the more the stars change, 'rising' before you and 'setting' behind you.

- When ships sail away, the bottom of the ship disappears first over the horizon, leaving the sails still visible. The same is true for mountains.

There were certainly some ancient peoples who imagined a flat earth (or a flat disc-shaped earth), but the idea of a round Earth is very old and most probably predates the Greek philosophers.