here, I cite from the National Center For Science Education's "Voices For Evolution" (3rd ed., ISBN 978-0-6152-0461-1, 2009) [V4E3] regarding the preponderant exclusion of supernaturalism from science:
001. "Kansas Academy of Science [...] 2006 [...] ideas that involve a supernatural agent are not scientifically testable, and therefore not scientific [p.059]."
002. "National Association of Biology Teachers [...] 1995 [...] science may appear to conflict with other ways of knowing about the universe, unfortunately leading some groups to see selected theories of science as a threat to their belief systems. This is not the case; science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge, non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems [...] any attempt to mix or contrast supernatural beliefs and naturalistic theories within science misrepresents the scientific enterprise and debases other, non-scientific, ways of knowing [p.154]."
003. "National Science Education Leadership Association [...] 1990 [...] creationism, and other pseudo-sciences, are premised upon supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and therefore are outside the realm of science [p.161]."
004. "New Mexico Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education [...no date] these people denounce the theory of evolution and would substitute a non-scientific, supernatural explanation of the origins of life forms on earth [...] the creationist goal is to allow supernatural explanations into science in order to change the very basis of science. Science deals with natural explanations for natural phenomena. Creationism or intelligent design, if allowed, would change this to promote supernatural explanations for natural phenomena – a contradiction in terms with regard to science [p.167]."
005. "University of Oklahoma Department of Zoology: Statement on Evolution [...] 4/19/2006 [...] in science, not all explanations are equal. By the rigorous criteria of science, supernatural mechanisms, including intelligent design creationism, are not scientific because they do not generate testable predictions about how species change or diversify. To argue that supernatural explanations merit discussion in science classrooms so that ‘both sides’ of the issue are taught is to advocate that nonscience be legitimized as science. In an era where scientific solutions to complex problems are of first priority, this is dangerous logic. We thus oppose any attempt to weaken scientific standards with respect to evolution, or to broaden the science curriculum to include the supernatural. In this, we stand with our colleagues in the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other scientific organizations [p.179]."
Note: guess what area claims -- absurdly -- that science INCLUDES the supernatural and science-exterior?