Again, you misrepresent my position. I said that science, being deliberately limited to naturalistic phenomena by definition, is not equipped to recognize supernatural creation.
For any supernatural evidence, science *must* propose undiscovered natural effects because of the way it is defined. Science requires a naturalistic answer, by definition.
Science will even do this to protect existing naturalistic theories (like the 'dark matter' 'dark energy' proposals for the cosmos) before it will recognize it is in error. The only evidence in favor of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are motions of observable matter that are not consistent with the prevailing model. Invisible 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are required for the prevailing model to 'work'. There is no other reason for their proposed existence.
Are you aware that fully 96% of the matter and energy needed to explain the observed motions of the objects in a universe modeled by the current standard model is invisible *by definition*. And this is for observations that surely do have other naturalistic explanations.
http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-03/cover/
How much more stridently will science propose undiscovered natural effects as being responsible for truly supernatural events such as the creation of the universe and the creation of life?
This is silly. I don't know how many different ways you can say that science is inadequate while denying the fundamental assertion of your comments.
I'm through representing or misrepresenting your position. People can read and judge for themselves.