Answering Swamidass- Why Removing Methodological Naturalism will not Break Science

-
In Swamidass on Methodological Naturalism, we read:

In a genuine effort for dialogue, I ask for the ID community, if they still care to remove MN from science, to help me understand why removing MN will not break science.

Sir Isaac Newton didn't need it. And if that was all there was to it, that alone would be enough.

The problem is as Swamidass said:

So, rather than ruling out intelligence in general, MN rules out divine intelligence as a causal factor.

How the fuck do you know until it's too late? He goes on to spew:

However, I cannot think of any cases where science considers “design” or “intelligence” while sharply avoiding talk of the nature of the designer or mind behind it. 

It isn't that ID avoids talking about the designer. It's that you do NOT need to know anything about the designer before you can determine deign exists or if nature did it, without any help.

Everything we know about it says that FIRST intelligent design is detected and it, along with all other relevant evidence is gathered and studied. THAT is Intelligent Design's purpose. You really can't say anything, scientifically, about the designer until you do that.

And the ID limitation on considering the designer seems arbitrary and is without a parallel in modern science.

LoL! It isn't arbitrary and it is the way science mandates. Evolution avoids the origin of life, even though how life originated, by intelligent design or spontaneously, dictates how it subsequently evolved, by intelligent design or spontaneously.

He goes on to spew:

There are fundamental problems with modeling God’s mind.

And yet we are unable to model nature's ability to produce life and its diversity. But that is OK.

Loser. We don't even know what determines the final form of any given organism. The point is you are unable to show us how methodological naturalism has produced any relevant models.

In a world in which the questions pertain to artificial/ telic versus natural/ non-telic, methodological naturalism is useless. You cannot limit scientific inquiry just because you feel the answer may invoke divine intelligence. I wonder if there is some detector that tells you if you are straying too close to the border- "Could be Q, could be God, I'm not sure, therefore nature". What the fuck?

Sir Isaac Newton would be ashamed. Charles Darwin would be ashamed.

One more thing to dispense with:

Even leaving the rule of MN aside,  most scientists do not find design arguments compelling.

Fine. Let them produce a valid scientific explanation and ID would go away. It is exactly because of their total FAILure that has allowed the design arguments back into the room. The way to falsify the design arguments is exactly how Isaac Newton described- show that an intelligent designer isn't required by showing nature is capable. Or shut up.

Science is about finding out the reality behind whatever is being investigated. Part of that reality being how it came to be the way it is. We use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to help us. That is knowledge of what nature is capable of coupled with the knowledge of what a designing agency can do with nature.

Saying nature produced nature or nature produced life, is worse than meaningless It is harmful bullshit lies.

Minds from the mindless is another bullshit lie and yet that is what MN would have us accept as science.

Science is about OPEN inquiries, people. Methinks Swamidass is a fool