[Doctor Stochastic]

Science requires no necessity for a natural explanation.

Wrong. Science is by definition limited to natural explanations. That's what science does. Of course, astrology, scientology, post-modernism, creationism, are all equivalent in their anti-science stance. None belong in a science classroom.

[Petrosius]

The natural sciences are limited to the study of natural phenomena but the proposition that the supernatural does not exist is not a matter of science but of metaphysics. The natural sciences by their very nature, being limited to the study of natural phenomena, has nothing to say on the subject. This is were the doctrinaire evolutionists err.

The scientific method does need to posit natural cause in order to form a working hypothesis but research method does not equal reality. As an example, the chemist must posit a chemical reaction in order to form a working hypothesis in chemistry. This does not mean that reality is limited to chemical reactions, he is just limited by his research method. The same is true of the natural sciences as a whole.

There are many reasons to reject the existence of the supernatural, but these are metaphysical propositions, not science.