No it doesn’t. A non-reproducible event 2000 years ago cannot be subjected to scientific investigation. And that is a methodological conclusion, not a metaphysical one. Where did you study your science? Mine was at Cambridge.
Again, you have a way of projecting motives on to quite clear statements: history using the local cultural methodology is simply not equipped to do the supernatural. I have no beef with that, as long as historians (and those who consult them) recognise their methodological limitations. As i clearly said, many historians accept the truth of the resurrection - but they’re honest enough not to try and pass it off as “history” in the modern, methodological, sense. If you read someone like N T Wright on that, you’d see he deals with it extensively.