[Dimensio]

Am I mistaken, or is it incorrect to say that science seeks 'natural explanations'?

No, science seeks natural explanations. That is its scope, that is one of its limitations.

I think science is all based on the concept of 'cause and effect'. Science is looking for causes of effects. It could even be a 'supernatural' cause, assuming you had evidence of such. That would still be 'science'.

It wouldn't be science if you involved the supernatural, because by definition science only deals with the natural.

For example, if 'God' were to show up in the sky over New York, and explain that the bible is specifically true, then that would be 'scientific' evidence of God's 'supernatural' existence.

No, science could only account for any natural phenomenon that accompanied the event (such as the methods by which 'God' was seen and heard, if they involved light waves and vibrating molecules or if they somehow involved manipulating the chemical reactions within the brains of the observers to create the sensaion of seeing and hearing) and it could only forumlate a hypothesis for a naturalistic reason for the event. That does not mean that the supernatural isn't really there or even that science is discounting the supernatural, it is just that science does not deal with the supernatural. Explanations regarding the presence of 'God' that went into supernatural elements would not be scientific -- but that would not necessarily make them false.

[Dominic Harr]

No, science seeks natural explanations. That is its scope, that is one of its limitations.

I disagree.

Science seeks explanations.

'Science' is just a method. You can use the scientific method to seek explanations for any kind of phenomenon.

It doesn't care about 'natural' v. 'supernatural'.

Again, if a supernatural event were to happen in front of millions of witnesses, science would not deny the event happened. There would be 'scientific evidence' of the 'supernatural' event.