The first sentence is false (What is a miracle then?) The last sentence is false. A scientific standpoint only concerns that for which there is evidence.
Meanings, schmeanings. Science is about evidence, not meanings. "Science" doesn't "understand" anything. Reification.
Science takes what it does not understand and applies what we call "natural" meanings.
For science to consider that there are "supernatural" causes requires proof that the "supernatural" exists prior to the cause, the one thing that cannot be proven.
The application of a meaning, or degree of human understanding, has no effect upon the reality of the thing.
Yes, and science is the process of discovering that "reality."
One may proudly take the stand that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Few scientists go that far.
Of course, to do so would require Proving the Negative.
Science is entitled to explore everything that may be real.
Aye, and therein lies the rub. The "supernatural" - by definition - leaves no evidence of its "existence" in the natural world, i.e., "the real." If it did it wouldn't be SUPERnatural and would simply be natural. This is called a conundrum.
There is nothing unscientfic about inferring a designer where design is present. There is plenty philosophical in asserting design is the product of anything but a designer.
Begs the Question that there is a "design." This is a limitation of language, not fact. To say that a foot is "designed" to assist an animal in walking is inaccurate. To say that a foot "evolved" to assist an animal is more accurate.
An analogy is the "ether" which was once thought to be the medium through which energy traveled. It is a false concept which has no validity. Same for saying that evolved structures are "designed." It is anthropomorphism. There is no evidence of a designer, pure and simple. There is no evidence that anything is "designed."
On the contrary, name any phenomenon that cannot be explained by "natural" causes.