Replies

[[In short, no one has yet come up with a “methodological supernaturalism” that produces repeatable or practical scientific information]]

Nor does ID have to- nor do they even attempt to contrary to all the false claims abotu ID- ID merely has to scientifically show that naturalism is not the best (or even biolgogically possible) means for IC- and all they have to do to be a valid science is give neough evidence to show that intellgience is needed- just as any forensic scientist does- their scientific obligation does not have to go any further by suggesting or showing the supernatural means- this is somethign many objectors to ID are absolutely mistaken about and which form hteir false statements against ID.

[[You may personally choose to put a subsequent theological spin on derived information, but the archive of scientific information is itself unconcerned with your theology.]]

Which ios good news for ID because hte evidence shows that the ideological assumption that Macroeovlution happened refutes hte idea altogether.

[[And the best way to express this “beef” with methodological naturalism is to propose and demonstrate a “methodological supernaturalism” that has some practical application for science.]]

No it isn’t. That is a false statement- ID isn’t about a ‘beef’, and it certainlky does not, as explained above, need to demonstrate any methodological supernaturalism- if htat were the core of science, then scientists who study Macroevolution would have to produce the methodology by wich species supernaturally violated biolgoy and natural laws- so by claiming hwat you just did, you have given an opinion about science that shows the hypothesis that youbeleive in is actually unscientific.- niether side need produce a methodolgical supernaturalism- they simply have to give neough factual science to point in one direction or the other (and further to show hte opposition hypothesis isn’t biolgically possible)