For some definition of science perhaps, but not the definition scientists use. The supernatural, or God in your parlance, is untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, and is therefore not science. If you want to believe in God and his hand in the creation of the universe and natural laws that fine, but it is not science. Because of the way science is done, there needs to be a way to rule out some hypotheses otherwise all hypotheses, no matter how loony (I'm not talking about religion here), have the same value. If you truly believe there is a way to scientifically investigate nature while not testing your hypotheses, please explain the methodology.
Making the assumption that everything is the result of God's design may be a valid world view but it is not science.
As I've said in the past and in so many words, this is a bald-faced contrivance, much as is the word "supernatural." What does "supernatural" mean but "out of the ordinary?" Are you telling me that science is only allowed to address matters that fall within the realm of "ordinary" observation? If you want that to be science, be my guest. You and your cohorts can bottle yourselves up and drown in your self-sufficient definitions and conclusions. Don't expect the rest of the world to follow suit, and please don't sue us for rejecting your small-minded approach to education in general and science in particular.