[Diamond]

Science has inherent limitations and, as such, does not search for truth among the supernatural or non-empirical.

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Your statement, being a philosophical statement about science, not a statement of science is self-refuting because it is not itself derived from the scientific method (by your own definition of "science"). It is therefore inconsistent with its own terms. Positivism offers no metaphysically neutral ground for disqualifying theories that invoke nonnaturalistic events—such as instances of agency or intelligent design.

Cordially,

[Rudder]

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Your statement, being a philosophical statement about science, not a statement of science is self-refuting because it is not itself derived from the scientific method (by your own definition of "science"). It is therefore inconsistent with its own terms. Positivism offers no metaphysically neutral ground for disqualifying theories that invoke nonnaturalistic events—such as instances of agency or intelligent design.

I never read so much gobbledygook in my life.

I've been a practicing scientist for 40 years and never met a scientist who presumed that science did not have precisely the limitations I presented. It has nothing to do with philosophy but the clear difference between empirical observation and mere conjecture.