Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Not trying to convince you either, Leadfoot...

...but I just do not see how anything that exists...can be thought of as un-natural or supernatural.

If there is a GOD, for instance, I do not see how it could be considered supernatural.

Is this just a semantic or definitional difference?

Methodological naturalism has become an important buzz word in the culture wars with the anti-science movement. The battle hinges around intelligent design and creationism advocates who claim the theory of evolution is a religion. The modern form of this started with Phillip Johnson and his publication of Darwin on Trial[5] where he not only created a list of repeatedly refuted creationist claims[6] but also tried to put forward the idea that teaching evolution was a violation of the establishment clause of the United States Constitution. Johnson's main argument centered around confounding philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism and claiming that teaching evolution was an endorsement of philosophical naturalism and thus impinged on the religious beliefs of students. Eugenie Scott described Johnson's error in her review:
“”The scientific definition of evolution makes no mention of theological issues such as whether God created. Science as practised today is methodologically naturalistic: it explains the natural world using only natural causes. Science cannot explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural. There is also an independent sort of naturalism, philosophical naturalism, a belief (not science, but belief) that the universe consists only of matter and energy and that there are no supernatural beings, forces, or causes. Johnson´s crucial error is not distinguishing between these two kinds of naturalism. That some individual scientists are philosophical naturalists does not make science atheistic any more than the existence of non-believing bookkeepers makes accounting atheistic.[6]
While Johnson and the creationists may have started the ball rolling it is the intelligent design advocates that have really embraced the rhetoric surrounding the evils of methodological naturalism. The Discovery Institute ("DI") as the primary public relations firm for "ID" has been beating this drum in every possible direction. The DI claims many things all at once, and the fact that they may contradict each other never seems to bother them. They just like to throw a bunch of bullshit out there and see what sticks.
They claim that:
1) Methodological naturalism is not really the accepted approach in Science.
2) Intelligent design actually follows methodological naturalism because it doesn't say who or what the designer is.
3) Answering the kinds of questions that intelligent design and evolution ask can not be handled by methodological naturalism.
4) Evolution is as much a religion as Intelligent design because of its reliance on naturalism.[7][8][9]
All of these arguments together are pretty self-defeating, but they are also wrong individually. Methodological naturalism is a cornerstone of science, embraced by both practitioners and philosophers of science. There is always disagreement in philosophy, and that includes philosophy of science. The fact that intelligent design doesn't talk about the designer is a major hit against it as a hypothesis, and it certainly doesn't save it from violations of methodological naturalism.
The value of methodological naturalism comes from the ability to quantify, measure, and study the causes of phenomenon. Intelligent design removes our ability to predict, measure and quantify, whether the intelligent designer is supernatural or an alien. The questions that evolution answers are rooted as firmly in empirical evidence and methodological naturalism as any other science. Arguments that claim it is not are really holdover ideas from creationists, who like to claim that unless it's directly observed in a laboratory, "it's not science". Sometimes the DI likes to mix in issues of morality and ethics, and claims evolution address those questions, but this is simply the naturalistic fallacy. Finally, the last argument that evolution is a religion is the same old Johnson argument - all over again - that Scott and others have had to address ad nauseum.
Arguments against methodological naturalism

While the reality of methodological naturalism, and its importance to practising scientists, cannot be denied by any rational person, that has not shielded it from criticism. Criticism of methodological naturalism comes primarily from two camps, and for opposite reasons.
The first is the religious and spiritual position that accepts its existence as a reality but feels that supernatural causes are directly observable and measurable and should be embraced by the scientific community.
The second is from philosophical naturalists, who also believe that the supernatural is testable but that it has failed all the tests and should be tossed. Essentially, they argue that the success of methodological naturalism, and the complete failure of other systems, means it is a logical leap to say that

What it does NOT include is ANYTHING biological

To put it in farmer's terms, 'A black smoker didit! or it could'a happened in some special clay!'.

I forgot to put in my summary in my inebriated state.

Anything requiring more than 'natural causes' (as defined in my previous post) is un-natural or supernatural. In other words, anything that requires intelligent design to come into existence.

Ironically, that includes the computers we're using to converse on since we, (IMHO) are not natural. Hate to get all metaphysical on you, but WE are extensions of the supernatural.

I forgot to put in my summary in my inebriated state

They [Discovery Institute] just like to throw a bunch of bullshit out there and see what sticks.
They claim that:
1) Methodological naturalism is not really the accepted approach in Science.
2) Intelligent design actually follows methodological naturalism because it doesn't say who or what the designer is.
3) Answering the kinds of questions that intelligent design and evolution ask can not be handled by methodological naturalism.
4) Evolution is as much a religion as Intelligent design because of its reliance on naturalism.[7][8][9]

the first puter was a loom

For me...anything that exists in nature...is natural. If there is a GOD...in my opinion, it would be a part of nature. If there are ghosts...in my opinion, they would be a part of nature.

We do not necessarily know all the things that are part of nature...and there may be a considerable part of nature hidden from us.

some part of that hidden part of nature is obviously intelligent

Fact-free assertions again

Quote:

Fact-free assertions again

Only if you are blind to everything else I've said.

Are you FBM's twin?

In any argument, the cheapest trick in the book is to claim your opponent has said 'nothing'. I'll leave it to every individual to judge for himself whether I've said something or not. I'm ok either way you go.

As FBM has frequently said, popularity proves nothing.

In any argument, the cheapest trick in the book is to claim your opponent has said 'nothing'. I'll leave it to every individual to judge for himself whether I've said something or not. I'm ok either way you go.

As FBM has frequently said, popularity proves nothing.

All I would add is that some part of that hidden part of nature is obviously intelligent.

Why are you saying it is obvious?

Only if you are blind to everything else I've said.

Are you FBM's twin?