Replies

As for naturalism being evidence based...well, the starting point of naturalism is an assumption that nature created itself. There simply is no where else to go in a circle. Once you fly off the circle you are in the "no man's land" of "non science" as defined by Darwinist naturalists.

They are called the natural sciences for a good reason. The presumption of naturalism in science has worked well for centuries, and there is no convincing reason to alter it now, other than the fact that it upsets the sensitivities of certain people.

Naturalistic evolution has succeeded in making a myriad of specific, successful predictions; hence its success. Can you think of one, just one, specific example of a prediction of data ever made assuming a supernatural cause? (By specific, I don't mean a sweeping generalization about life on earth; I mean, something like, what specific fossil might be found in a particular region, or the location of a specific protein in a DNA sequence.)

Until then, there's no motivation to call ID science, other than the fact that the theory that actually works (evolution) has consequences some consider upsetting. Scientists don't give up pursuit of knowledge just because of popular sentiment.