Again, you misrepresent what science can do and what I say about science.
Simply, science is limited to naturalistic methods and is not equipped to answer the question of supernatural vs natural creation.
You should not pretend that the fact that science has a naturalistic answer is a superior position. It is a requirement of science.
As I pointed out earlier. Science will follow a theory even when 96% of the substance required to produce the required effects is invisible. This is on the same level as magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, Ouija boards, tarot cards, black cats, witch doctors, the unguessable verdict of history, and a host of other un-natural phenomena.
You should not pretend that this is 'scientific'.
>>As I pointed out earlier. Science will follow a theory even when 96% of the substance required to produce the required effects is invisible.
OTOH, you will follow a philosophy as truth when 100% of the substance required to produce the required effects is invisible!