[spunkets]

"There is no truly objective science that can be done. All the data is interpreted based on the particular scientists observations and presumptions."

Wrong. Science is objective, because the data are open for anone to look at. The data can also be reproduced if desired.

"that ID and creationism are extraneous are your opinion only. There is no objective standard to which you can appeal to support your statement."

The scientific method is the objective standard. ID and creationism can not be subject to the scientific method. In fact, they conflict with science. They are in contradiction with science. they are hypoothesis, with no support of any evidence at all.

"You're presuming that the naturalistic approach to science..."

Nothing is presumed. If the matter can be examined with the scientific method, it will be, otherwise if it can't, then it's not science.

"The scientist is then setting up conditions on the experiment that HE thinks are necessary..."

The experimental conditions go with the results and conclusions. That's required for both the scientific method and publication.

[metmom]

The observation and interpretation of the data is made by a fallible human scientist who is starting with some basic assumptions about his theory or experiment. Granted, some science is pretty reliable, like chemical reactions and physics. There can be objectivity to a great degree when measuring changes with instruments, but not all science is so hard and fast.
A naturalistic approach to science is presumed because, we are being constantly told on these threads that science deals only with the natural and not the supernatural because the supernatural is outside the realm of science so science cannot address it. That is starting with a presumption that biases your interpretation of data and perhaps your observation of it.