Ah, yes. See my point to bb, above; IDism is not about macroevolution, but about the nature of science. There are those who want to upset the whole applecart and devise a radical new science, free from the constraints of "naturalism", but without some indication that such a revolution would result in anything better than what we have or that it would be useful to anybody, least of all scientists, such a revolution is simply an invitation to chaos.
Sadly, the too many scientists and non-scientists have no understanding of the presuppositions that characterize the style of scientific thinking.
Why is this sad? A scientist who is well grounded in the philosophy of science performs no better research than one who isn't.
Because we are human beings before we are scientists.
Is naturalism to be conceieved free from the constraints of anything that is not naturalism?
This shows the philosophical unity of the Creationists and the Post-Modern-Deconstructionists. Both seek to deny the scientific method as a means of gaining konwledge and both give precidence to feelings and an esoteric gnosis not subject to scientific analysis.
No it is not. Intelligent Design does not seek to destroy scientific investigation, it seeks to give it proper direction. Direction back to what was being done before Darwin. Direction towards discovering the law and order of nature. Evolution is and has always been an intellectual dead end. It seeks to explain away the discoveries of science, not to make new ones. That is why for 150 years all that evolution has been responsible for is explanations which are soon refuted such as spontaneous generation, melding, and junk DNA.