His statement was that the philosophy by which science is run categorically rejects as untrue anything that requires any non-natural process to have happened.
If this statement is not true, then the correct response would be to counter it -- not change the subject and try to demonstrate that the statement is irrelevant. (There is a vast difference between arguing that something is irrelevant and arguing that something is untrue.)
On the other hand, if the statement is true, then it is true that scientists will dogmatically rule as untrue or impossible something that could be true and possible -- and they wouldn't be ruling it out because of lack of merit, but because "it's not science, because it doesn't fit the dogmatic assertion that all science must require only natural processes."
So as long as it is possible that everything was created by an intelligent creator, it is dogmatic to rule out an evidence which requires an intelligent creator.
Now I observe many things in the world around me which sure look like it was all created, but that's not the point here. The point is that the scientific philosophy does have a dogmatic ban on a possibility.
-Jesse
The "philosophy" by which science is run is to investigate what can be investigated. If you have a way to investigate the supernatural (other than arduously eliminating the natural), then feel free to suggest it.
If this statement is not true, then the correct response would be to counter it -- not change the subject and try to demonstrate that the statement is irrelevant.
The subject is why scientists investigate the natural, and eschew the supernatural. See above. I don't know why that relatively simple subject needs to be dressed up in philosophical jargonese, and I don't know what all the philosophical jargonese brings to the table -- other than obfuscation.