Pardon my butting in (and I'm not trying to change subject we've been discussing on the side - I'm still interested in your thoughts on that), but perhaps you can tell me what reasoning is sufficient to conclude that some phenomenon X could not have come about through naturalistic processes.
By "come about through naturalistic processes" I assume you mean "cannot be explain by a theory of natural science." Is that what you mean?
To be clear, as I read it, you're not saying "no *current* theory of natural science can explain it" but rather that "no theory of natural science *will ever* explain it." So I am wondering how you will account for every scientific theory present and future and deduce that none will ever explain X?
Scientific theories generally don't deal in absolutes like that. In fact, I'm skeptical of the generally accepted theoretical claim that we'll never be able to exceed the speed of light. But that doesn't make it any less of a valid scientific theory.
What's necessary for ID to be viable at all is for there to be living forms and features that are inexplicable by any current naturalistic theory. The longer that state of affairs continues, despite genuine attempts to come up with such theoretical models, the more likely that the ID theory would be correct.