[Sabertooth]

By now, naturalistic explanations should have earned the privilege of being the default assumption in cases in which we don't know the explanation. Assuming anything else amounts to punting.

Actually, there should be no assumption at all where we don't know the explanation. Nothing is lost by waiting while the answers are gleaned,and a naturalistic explanation is the likely outcome anyway.

Ironically, "naturalistic explanations" are, at their core, a punt, since the question, "What caused or causes nature?" is unanswered. And unanswerable... by science.

A naturalistic explanation for nature would be a tautology.

[VadeRetro]

Actually, there should be no assumption at all where we don't know the explanation. Nothing is lost by waiting while the answers are gleaned,and a naturalistic explanation is the likely outcome anyway.

Since I don't personally know of one good solid documented supernatural event, you'll excuse me if I assume until one comes along that whatever may be lacking in the explanation for a thing, it's probably not a violation of the laws of physics.