Here you go.
Take a look at this site.
What is observable and quantifiable can be interpreted in more than one way.
The 'scientific process' is limited *by definition* to natural explanations. Not the best 'a priori' limit to place on your acceptable explanations when supernatural vs natural is the question you are trying to answer.
It is impossible to find evidence of the supernatural in science, *by definition*.
Don't be deceived.
Here's one for you from Halton Arp. He's the guy who discovered that redshift didn't equal distance and was refused telescope time for his discovery.
Such is how 'science' treats dissenters.
Here's his Wiki entry for an easier read.
Then see Tifft for his work on 'quantized' redshifts, which mean that redshifts don't represent distance, but some other quality of the object.
There are a lot more opinions of the evidence that 'standard science' would admit.
These guys are particularly interesting.