[pby]

You did not answer the question I asked.

I did not ask if "it" ("it" equalling the supernatural) qualified as science.

I asked if science could judge the validity, or existence, of anything related to the supernatural given that it does not deal in it.

The answer has to be "no"...If science does make judgements or proclamations related to the supernatural, then it is dealing in the supernatural and loses it's scientific status.

[highball]

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

None of what you posted doesn't change the fact that the supernatural isn't within the realm of science, and science should not be faulted for ignoring supernatural explanations, especially when there is plenty of evidence to support a natural explanation.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Note the ensuing "scientific" reply. Why science would want to adopt such arbitrary terms as "natural" and "supernatural" is beyond me. Ask science, "What is supernatural," and all it can say is, "Whatever is 'natural' or cannot be examined by science."

Ask science again "what is 'natural?'" and all it can say is "whatever can be known by science or is not "supernatural." Talk about low standards for precision. Talk about circular reasoning. Most of all talk about presuppositions and biases. And this from a pursuit that is by its very nature dedicated to true knowledge.

[self_evident]

I asked if science could judge the validity, or existence, of anything related to the supernatural given that it does not deal in it.

I think you are asking something a little to obvious, and hence people think you are setting a rhetorical trap.

So to state the blatantly obvious. Science is the study of natural processes. It can't tell us a thing about the supernatural.

However, science has frequently demonstrated that things thought to be only explained by the supernatural can actually be explained by natural processes. So it sounds like a paradox, but science only demonstrates that the supernatural isn't necessary.