[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

So which is it? Does it explore the supernatural or not?

If you tell me my TV picture is generated by spirits living inside my TV, and I show you that no, there's an explanation for the picture that doesn't involve spirits, that doesn't mean I'm exploring the spirits that live in my TV.

The reason your question is called "trolling" is that you've mostly demonstrated yourself to be smarter than that. One obvious conclusion is that you just said it to be argumentative--that you must see that it's a silly thing to say but said it anyway.

[valkyry1]

No, you are the troll, and you are trolling by putting the words in her mouth (creating the straw man) words that that she never said, and then attacking the straw man.

I am not saying that it is, but if that is all education can produce, what a waste of education.

[metmom]

It’s a reasonable question. On one hand, we’re told that science doesn’t concern itself with the supernatural, on the other, how science has revealed that a lot of what was once thought supernatural had physical explanations.

How could science do that without exploring the supernatural?

There’s still an awful lot of inexplicable things out there that occur; things that seem to violate the natural laws that have been observed. So do we ignore that or not? If we ignore that which we can’t explain simply because it’s been labeled supernatural, we lose the opportunity to learn something new.