[WildHorseCrash]

Here again you've place science under a restriction it is neither obligated nor empirically qualified to adopt. Science in general is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." If it cares to restrict itself to so-called "natural phenomenon" it is free to do so, but I would expect it to state outright that it has thereby arbitrarily eliminated explanations that may be objectively true.

No, this is you trying to lawyer things which are not science into the definition of science. Science deals with natural phenomenon. If something is "objectively true" but cannot be determined using the scientific method, by the empirical study of the natural world and natural phenomena, then the study and description of it is just not science.

[Dimensio]

No, this is you trying to lawyer things which are not science into the definition of science.

Actually, he doesn't like the current "limitations" of science only offering naturalistic explanations for naturalistic events, so he wants to declare said "limitation" to be arbitrary and be allowed to define anything that he wants as "science". Essentially, he's upset that his religious beliefs don't have the "credibility" of science, so he wants to destroy science and replace it with a philosophy of his own definition and rename that to be "science".

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science is more than Baconian inductivism. You've "lawyered" your own definition of science, too, by insisting (on a non-empirical basis) that it must only deal with natural phenomena, with "natural" being a term that is wholly arbitrary. Again, as long as I know where you're coming from, I will generally understand why you come to the conclusions you do. The results are consistent with your assumptions, as they should be. The ubiquitous presence of organized matter that perfroms specific functions is also consistent with the assumption that the universe is a product of intelligent design, as it should be.