Earlier I was commenting on the crevo debate itself and sidebarred off into a discussion of parenting. Rules of engagement in a forum (this or any) are much like parenting. The owner(s) of the house dictates the rules. This is Jim's house, Jim's rules. The rules on Darwin Central would be their own. Ditto for talk origins, etc.
And long before that (on another thread as I recall) we were discussing methodological naturalism per se in science and my suggestion for improvement, namely that scientists ought to approach problems like mathematicians and declare only whatever axioms/postulates are necessary for a particular investigation.
One of my last comments was that this suggestion would not apply to routine investigations where protocols are already in place, i.e. the presuppositions for investigating an antibody are part of the protocol.
Then we apparently started mixing them much earlier. The discussion started off in the context of discussing involvement of philosophy/theology in scientific methodology at large. If the debates here are an entirely different subject then there was some non-sequitur association made somewhere that got us where we are now.