again, you misrepresent science. A study doesn't always have to do a scientific method as you and others define it. And science by the definition given to us by the dictionary includes much more than naturalism. You are not being honest with your terms or you are just completely blinded by the negative and anti creator voices and thoughts in your head. Why don't you question some of your thoughts?
I do science, you do apologetics. Apologists do not define the rules of science.
(And I do not listen to "voices" in my head.)
Precisely how, pray tell?
And science by the definition given to us by the dictionary includes much more than naturalism.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that science assumes regularity; i.e. the assumtion that powerful invisible beings aren't engaged in a vast conspiracy to put their thumbs on the scales to throw off our observations about the world.
IOW: Science does not assume naturalism, per se. Science only assumes that the universe as we can detect it isn't lying to us.