The definition of science: What should it be?

Can you provide any references to such a definition. The google page of "science" definitions does not even mention "methodological naturalism." No, that's wrong. Science explains what it can on the basis of evidence, and leaves unexplained what it cannot explain. It does not claim to explain everything. Yes, there are varying definitions. It depends on which creationist site you go to for finding the definition, and which particular way that creationist site wants to misrepresent science. You need to document these charges. If you cannot document them, then you are bearing false witness. I am not aware of any presupposed conventions. Science uses conventions, but it develops those conventions as needed for the particular study. "Science" is difficult to define, precisely because it is not based on presupposed conventions.

Mostly, scientists are pragmatists. They seek what works. And what works need not be truth.As an example, consider the ideal gas laws. These are important in physics. Yet every physicist knows that, technically, the ideal gas laws are false for real gases and true only for an imagined ideal gas. Nevertheless, the ideal gas laws are an excellent approximation, and using them works in terms of making pretty good predictions about the behavior of gases.When Percy says "science seeks truth", you should take that as a metaphor. Scientists would certainly prefer that their laws are all truth. But if they are good approximations that work very well, then scientists will find those useful enough, and will develop their science on the basis of such approximations. If they are later able to get even better approximations, then so much the better.