Original sentence: In the context of Genesis, creationists believe that Creation according to Genesis is a historically accurate account of the origins of the Earth, and that the physical evidence today is more consistent with that account than with the scientific theories of origins.Science, by necessity, is unable to consider such supernatural phenomena as evidence because a primary tenet of science is that nature, being widely observable, provides the only objective standard from which to evaluate evidence.The normal definition of supernatural events is anything not existing or observable in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws or not physical or material.This effectively redefines the supernatural to account for the natural, and most scientists would consider such an adjustment to be inappropriate as do many fideists.This type of reasoning flies in the face of falsification, trying to justify an account rather than looking for independent empirical evidence
Edited sentence: Accordingly, creationists argue that the key issue is whether things happen, rather than whether those things appear to be "natural" according to our knowledge of the law of nature.If those things do not happen, then they are irrelevant, whether supernatural or not.In the context of Genesis, creationists believe that Creation according to Genesis is a historically accurate account of the origins of the Earth, and that the physical evidence today is more consistent with that account than with the dominant naturalistic theories of origins.On the other hand, if they do happen, then we should adjust and expand our knowledge of the laws of nature to account for their occurrence, rather than deny that those events occur simply because they are "supernatural.The mainstream scientific community defines as supernatural anything not existing or observable in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws or not physical or material.Their view is that science by necessity is unable to consider supernatural phenomena as evidence because a primary tenet of science is that nature, being widely observable, provides the only objective standard from which to evaluate evidence