[edsheppa]

This [naturalism] is extremely limiting when we look at the big picture.

Superficially plausible, but the evidence is otherwise. This plus a few other foundational methods have enable science to make tremendous strides. I'd say it compares quite favorably with philosophies and techniques of the past.

I do say ID has much to offer science as a whole.

So far it hasn't been so. Philosophically speaking, how does one tell the difference between design and an unknown natural law?

[Heartlander]

Philosophically speaking – with pure naturalism – who can say what Bill Clinton did was wrong. I mean, Monica vs. Hillary? It’s relative.