"Because science rules out supernatural explanations..."

Science, of course, does nothing of the sort. Science ignores supernatural explanations, which is as it should be. Science does not and can not address phenomena posited to occur outside the natural universe. Science exists to investigate the natural world. Attempting to use it to establish or analyze purportedly supernatural phenomena is a category error.

At most, science can investigate the causal antecedents of an observed natural phenomenon that is claimed to be the result of a supernatural phenomenon to see if an alternative, natural explanation exists. If none is found, that also doesn't rule out natural causation (since knowledge of all possible natural phenomena is not remotely available), thus leaving only supernatural explanations, it simply leaves the matter of causal antecedent unresolved.

Science can only "rule out" the supernatural if/when it is able to completely identify and validate all causal factors behind a phenomenon. This is generally only possible in non-complex, micro-level phenomena. More "macro" phenomena tend to have multiple causal factors, and the relative import of each can be extremely difficult to empiricize.

--------------------------------------------------------

Some very interesting sections in Wallace's essay about linguistic philosophy. That was my academic specialty, back when all this was fields; what work I do in the field for some time now has been more in the area of philosophy of science. I'd want to take the time to read the source material (I'm already familiar with Chomsky, of course) before commenting in detail, but I certainly appreciate it's citation here. More of that I consider the forum to be for, rather than thinly-veiled American politics.