Shall they then issue the same disclaimer for their research having no position on leprechauns? Where does the silliness end?
Science describes the natural world. Do you want them to say that the natural world requires the supernatural to function? That is absurd on its face.
No, not disclaimers. Look at it from the reverse. A creationist using a bible passage to tell the "science" of cosmology.
Should he issue a disclaimer? No. His effort is in error, he is using one method of inquiry totally improperly to deduce knowledge in another.
The same is true in the opposite direction. From my earlier post it is amazing to me that an evolutionary scientist is given a chair that he uses to pontificate his inferences about religion. A disclaimer is hardly enough when the whole enterprise is so flawed.
In a somewhat separate manner I wish that our education system taught the classics of philosophy and knowledge of the various methods used in inquiry of reality - and the limits of each.
It really isn't a one-sided argument that's going on. It truly is common in many places that science contradicts religion and vice-versa. This is a false choice, and a dangerous one too.
There are religionists who avoid this; there are scientists who avoid this. I see them in the minority. And on the topic of this thread, it is so discouraging to see the errors brought forth so passionately and, IMHO, ignorantly.
Do you want them to say that the natural world requires the supernatural to function? That is absurd on its face.
If you define super as "beyond" then the answer is "yes." Science models the physical world - usually in geometry or mathematics. This works pretty well, the models work, predict, we fly in the air, split atoms, etc.
This is a description of how matter/energy behave in our observable universe, which we could describe as "nature." We must be very careful not to reduce natural reality to what is known by science.
Does it require something beyond nature so defined to function? Well, it requires existence. It requires that this existence behaves in this manner; and for us to even attempt science it must be capable of being modeled and comprehended in models. As one put it, "the most incomprehensible aspect of the universe is that it is comprehensible."
It could be otherwise, there could be no-existence, there could also only be randomness. The logical paradox for the origin of the universe still is in effect.
That you can describe how something occurs, model how it occurs, does not mean you know why it occurs or if it has purpose (contrary to Dawkins' view), or even whether it will continue to do so or suddenly stop (other than by inference which is not considered logical "proof.")
So, yes, there is a whole level of reality beyond physical reality that is necessary for physical reality. There are also a great deal of important questions that science must address to do science - that lie outside of science.
We should not reduce any question beyond science as superstition or pixie dust. Science is the firmest area of knowledge, the most certain. It is not however the largest or the most important to human existence.