Not at all.
It's simply the working direction of the scientific enterprise: to seek only natural explanations for natural processes.
Scientists are free to believe, and many do, whatever they wish about the supernatural realm.
editor-surveyor: "Natural is a deeply subjective term to begin with, thus the definition of any resultant term remains variable and completely remote from science."
Most people would suppose there is a pretty clear distinction between natural and super-natural.
For example: miracles are super-natural, and by definition cannot be explained by science.
Natural processes -- i.e., sunrise, sunset -- are the realms of science, which seeks to explain the hows and whys.
Of course, there are "gray areas" between natural and super-natural that virtually everyone experiences, from time to time.
Uncanny coincidences come to mind -- even a scientist might see the Hand of God in them, though by definition that could not be a scientific explanation.
editor-surveyor: "Yehova’s world is the only truly natural one, yet one to which those professing naturalism are completely blind due to their own subjective choices."
Of course that's true of the version of naturalism known as philosophical or ontological or metaphysical naturalism.
Those are, in effect, philosophical even religious affirmations of atheism.
But methodological naturalism itself says nothing about the super-natural, it is simply a working rule for scientists to: seek natural explanations for natural processes.
editor-surveyor: "Science can only survive in a relm of total objectivity, so naturalists cannot ever be scientists."
Sorry, but that's just fantasy.
It appears that you wish to set yourself up as judge and jury of exactly what constitutes "total objectivity".
In the real world, scientists simply seek to find and test natural explanations for natural processes -- regardless of whether you consider them "objective" or not.
By contrast, religious people seek to find higher explanations for both "natural" and super-natural events -- explanations for which the word "objectivity" has no bearing.
Since you’re not a scientist, you should give up trying to be the voice of science.