The day science stops asking hard questions and challenging its own assumptions is the day we fall into Hari Seldon's scientific atrophy.
But unless and until we MEET and can physically incorporate the supernatural (using the classical definition "that which is above the physical world" which includes God or an Intelligent Designer) then the supernatural can not be a part of scientific inquiry.
BWAHAHAHA!!!!
The day that the *supernatural* is met and incorporated, is the day that scientists will declare it to not be supernatural after all, but declare it to merely be a as yet undiscovered past of the physical realm.
Unless God Himself were to come down and tell people Himself, scientists will not accept any evidence that the supernatural exists.
Oh, wait a minute now......
Good grief, freedumb2003! The "classical" definition seems a tad arbitrary — if by supernatural we mean "that which is above the physical world." What does "'above' the physical world" mean? If you define "natural" as "physical," such that only physical things are "natural," where do you fit the natural laws into this picture — which are thoroughgoingly NOT physical? Indeed, if you want to restrict the "natural" only to physical objects, then the laws' very unphysicality would render them "supernatural." And yet we all believe the natural laws directly have something to do with Nature.
And ditto with respect to mathematics and geometry — but they are not physical things either. Are they thus to be considered supernatural? Yet they, too, seem to have something to do with the natural world. And how about time — how "physical" is time? Does its lack of physicality mean that it is supernatural?
Then again, perception and consciousness are not "physical." Certainly they are not less "objective" for all that; nor arguably can they be "supernatural," for the simple reason that we observe that natural entities like human beings have percepts and are conscious.
In the end, it seems that the fundamental presupposition of methodological naturalism is questionable. It states that natural entities MUST have natural causes exclusively.
The question then becomes: What exactly is a "natural" cause? Does it have to be physically observable? Is Nature really reduced to physical causation only?
If so, a whole lot of things in this universe would be utterly inexplicable.