Science has demonstrated itself to be extremely useful in revealing the natural world. Any thoughtful theist is not opposed to science. What I am opposed to is the philosophical assumptions or extrapolations that are made and declared scientific, primarily, naturalism.
Even this thread's title reveals this philosophical slant, as if to say, if you don't accept completely natural explanations then you must be a science-denying faith-based mystic who believes in magic. Hardly the starting point for an open and constructive dialogue.
The issue is, as least for myself, not science itself; it is the assumption that science proves naturalism (the philosophy that everything is part of the spatiotemporal universe) and therefore, everything is reducible to being detected by our senses and defined by scientific theories. The goal of science is to explain the happenings of the natural world. Restricting the natural world to only natural explanations is to impose a philosophical framework over science that science itself does not entail.
The imposition of naturalism upon science, in fact, restricts science to only look in one direction regards of how much evidence may indicate otherwise. For instance, if, upon looking up at the moon, we observed a set of beach houses on the edge of the Sea of Tranquility. Certainly, no one would accept a purely naturalistic explanation for how those houses got there. We would rightfully detect the obviousness of intelligent design. In fact, many sciences use design detection and to force only naturalistic explanations would be nonsensical (paleontology, forensic sciences, SETI).
While many eyes roll instinctively at the mention of intelligent design, my point is not to provide the case for ID. Rather, the intention is to illustrate that it is not science that discards intelligent design from being possible. Remember, the purpose of science is to examine what happens in the natural world. Nothing intrinsic to that statement makes design an anti-scientific possibility just as paleontology is not anti-scientific for using design to make discoveries. If intelligent design is being discarded as being anti-scientific or 'magical', it is on the basis of a naturalistic philosophy, not because of science.
You say sciences goal is to explain the natural world. By what non-natural method do you plan on doing this? Have you even demonstrated a reliable method for separating fact from fiction with is NOT natural? All this objection really sounds like is, "Well, I don't like the idea that nature (matter/energy) may be all there is. So, I want to bring in supernaturalism as a replacement for my ignorance."
Sorry, that doesn't fly in science. It is unreliable.
Secondly, your example of 'houses on the moon' is a false analogy because it assumptions that the way we recognize design is just by our intuitions (or just by looking at it and saying, "Aha! Design!"
) but that is not how design is recognized at all. We contrast design with nature
(that which is not designed by us). This design argument of yours is based in a logical fallacy (the argument from incredulity). We recognize human
design because we have lots of examples of it, not
because we just-look-at-it and say it's designed. I'm sorry, an argument from ignorance based in incredulity is not a sufficient justification for inserting supernatural explanations. The fact of the matter is, when we do not understand something about the reality in which we now find ourselves we do not have license to just jump to supernatural or "non-natural" explanations - b/c attempting to answer mysteries by even bigger mysteries
moves the conversation nowhere. These attempts are non-answers and have no explanatory power.
Lastly, we aren't talking about what is merely (logically) possible. Science deals with what is actually demonstrable. You can posit all of the things you think are "possible" all day long and that won't do one iota to change what is actually known or demonstrable. For all you know, magic pink flying alien unicorns could be living on the back side of Pluto. So what! Just because you think something is possible doesn't mean it is actually science. If you think your hypothesis is science, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. And in case you haven't noticed, the scientific community at large (as well the courts and the legal system) have shown quite conclusively that ID is NOT science. In fact, Michael Behe himself admitted (under oath) that his personal definition of science would have to include astrology (and witchcraft etc) as science! FAIL.
This conspiracy theorist nonsense from you guys only serves to discredit you further and further. You're just trying to smuggle in your argument from ignorance fallacies (with magic) and it's not science in any way shape or form - never has been and never will be, b/c claiming magic, invisible mystery beings, or supernatural causes does absolutely nothing to further the enterprise of knowledge.