Methodological Naturalism- or Confused conflationism?

-
OK, I have a simple sobriety test. The cop asks you to say "methodological naturalism". And if you pass that, spell it.

Methodological naturalism. Quite the mouthful. What is it? And is it really "the way" to conduct science?

According to Wikipedia, the (now former) head of the NCSE, Dr. Eugenie Scott, said:

Science as practised today is methodologically naturalistic: it explains the natural world using only natural causes.

A few serious and fatal problems with that- especially if she was trying to define ID out of the realm of science:

1- How is she defining natural? Did Stonehenge arise naturally or artificially?

2- Science cannot start with an answer already in hand. Banning telic explanations is a sign of a Dogma. Dogma and science do not mix

3- The contrast is between natural, as in produced by nature, versus artificial, as in produced by some intentional/ intelligent agency

4- The intelligent design exists in nature and as such can be studied


The "naturalistic" explanation for the physical laws of the universe?

"They just are (the way they are)." - the Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time"

Our earth? A accretion of cosmic debris formed over millions of years with innumerable just-so cosmic collisions to give it its content, rotation an just-so Moon.

And again, Stonehenge? Or is it OK for telic explanations cuz we "know" (nudge, nudge; wink, wink) humans arose via natural processes?

That is the problem. Telic processes are allowed only when it is absolutely proven, even though science allegedly doesn't do proof (it sure as hell did a good job at proving we are part of a heliocentric solar system. And Einstein's equations did a good job at proving gravity bends light- oh well).

Where is the demarcation? And why?

Sir Isaac Newton definitely did NOT use methodological naturalism for anything. He wouldn't have allowed it.