The first two reasons are stupid and dismissed outright. The solution for the 3rd is for scientists to prove macro evolution with NO supernatural causes can explain all the points ID makes. ID is already a success in that regard in that Biology textbooks are on the defensive trying to explain (pathetic as it may be) how eyes evolved. Macro evolution has no science except that "given enough time stuff happens".
“Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the sciences.” I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a scientist, but I thought that the heart of the sciences was the study of natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe.
I’m glad that the first thing he admits is he’s no scientist, since that is clear. He’s no logician either.
The “Supernatural” by definition is outside the study of “natural phenomena to gather knowledge of the universe.” Therefore it can never, by definition be something that can be studied by science. If it can be proven to be an area that is subject to the study of science, then the “natural phenomenon” will no longer be restricted to the “supernatural” realm and THEREFORE subject to scientific study.
This is all a matter of rational definition.
Now to move on to your critique:
The solution for the 3rd is for scientists to prove macro evolution with NO supernatural causes can explain all the points ID makes.
You are a lousy logician as well. One cannot Prove a Negative proposition, since if the proposition is wrong there can be NO evidence to support it. That is why in logic and in science the Burden of Proof is upon whoever is making the assertion. It isn’t possible to prove that there are NO supernatural causes because if that were true none would exist. One can't prove what doesn't exist.
However no evidence has been provided that the natural world CANNOT create irreducibly complex structures, which would also be Proving a Negative. The Assertion Without Proof that the ONLY alternative explanation is Design, would require an Infinite Knowledge of the Universe that would exclude all other possibilities.
Sorry, ID doesn't say that.
The Circular Argument is that since some rather sloppy and uncreative “scientists” cannot figure out how the natural world could come up with certain structures (a unfounded conclusion) then the only alternative explanation is an unfounded assertion.
Dat ain’t science.