Replies

"Offer another alternative."

Sure

1. A naturally occurring designer that neither evolved nor was designed itself. Goes to Bad Premise #1
2. An evolved designer that evolved elsewhere than earth. This scenario violates bad premise #1 but not bad premise #2. However, discussion of design is currently excluded despite this possibility existing within the limiting definitions of science that evo's espouse.
2. A natural world that is far bigger and more complex than the universe we've been able to define with very limited knowledge so far. Theories like string theory are beginning to explore the possibility of additional dimensions. Until we fully understand the natural world, how can we claim that any designer necessarily evolved or is Supernatural. Such a claim reeks of arrogance.
If we could detect the spiritual world, would it not then have to be included in the natural world? I believe one day we will have such knowledge.
Would God still be considered "Supernatural" if we had sufficient knowledge about how to detect Him? Is it really appropriate to limit our definition of the "natural" world and resulting scientific discussions to what our current theories can define very well. To do so is to limit investigation.
What if Coopernicus had accepted the natural world definition of his day which was defined by the geocentric system and not investigated further? Such is exactly the limitation placed on science by Evo's attempt to define away all alternatives.