If there is a designer acting in nature then MN wouldn’t exclude that designer. The designer would be considered part of nature in this case.
MN is inclusive, not exclusive. The rules of MN describe the requirements for being included within the methodology, which is testable hypotheses and empirical observations. The problem for ID is that they have yet to come up with a legitimate hypothesis that can be tested with empirical evidence.
Final thought: What do those who seek empirical evidence of God’s involvement make of Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Edit: Visible. That is, capable of being perceived by the senses, which means capable of empirical observation and measurement. The Scripture itself says we understand creation by God as a matter of faith, not of what we can empirically observe and/or measure.
none survived peer review by those peers who are so hostile to the very approach, and committed to ensuring no ID-sympathetic position would ever be given the respectability of a favorable peer-review? The same kind that demanded Sternberg’s resignation for daring to allow publication of an ID sympathetic article, and presumably would do the same In the future for any editor that ever dared to allow an ID-sympathetic article to ever be considered for entry into a scientific journal?
The same way the Israelites crossed the Red Sea “by faith” all while staring quite directly at the most obvious empirical evidence of God’s involvement one might find in the entire Old Testament (Hebrews 11:29)?
And science could not have proven that it was God who did it.
For those criticisms to have weight you would need to show how the ID work has scientific merit.
Providential correlations, though obvious to the believer (through faith), cannot be proven by science. See Maggie’s dramatic account.
You have me intrigued but baffled. Can I buy a clue?
No, but you have three lifelines. What’s your question? Phone a friend or ask the crowd? 
I’ve read the arguments and counter-arguments. I seriously had no dog in the hunt when I showed up here not that long ago. Donning my referee’s shirt, I read both sides of the argument, and it was really no contest. Irreducible Complexity didn’t pass muster. Neither did Dembski’s math. “Hostile to the very approach” is a conspiracy theory. If any of the ID “prophets” had produced empirical evidence that held up to scrutiny, then even the most ardent opponent might’ve found a few nits to pick but been unable to refute the argument. When every Tom, Dick, and Harry Ph.D. can refute the arguments, I don’t think the position has much merit.
Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always. Remember today that your children were not the ones who saw and experienced the discipline of the Lord your God: his majesty, his mighty hand, his outstretched arm; the signs he performed and the things he did.
Those who did not witness the events must take the word of the witnesses by faith.
Edit: I suppose I should make myself crystal clear. This also applies to the resurrection. Jesus didn’t write anything down. He appointed messengers – apostles.
and those who did witness the event still proceeded by faith…
“By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned.“ (Heb 11:29)
The level of extreme and vehement opposition to Sternberg’s decision simply to publish an ID article, after indeed having it peer-reviewed, tells me there is something much more going on. One doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that what happened to Sternberg would indeed happen to any other publisher that dared to try to publish an ID paper, even if he found it of scientific merit, and even if it were successfully peer-reviewed as Meyer’s paper had been.
the journal, in criticizing Sternberg’s decision to so publish, stated the following:
The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.
translated, this says: “Meyer’s paper does not meet the scientific standards of our journal solely because his article defends intelligent design. we have already determined that any paper or position that supports ID is by definition unscientific, and thus will not ever be published, nor will the ideas or arguments therein even be entertained.”
this isn’t a conspiracy theory, this is the self-admitted position of this scientific journal. they will not publish anything if it supports ID conclusions.
i don’t think NPR, after all, is a foremost peddler of “conspiracy theories”…
I just don’t get how the quote would have any chance of reaching those who “seek empirical evidence of God’s involvement”. I’m pro-faith so I’d like to see it succeed. But I just don’t see what it is about that quote which will ramp up their trust enough to settle for hope when their native inclination is to come up with a new bull-dozer argument which will convince everyone.
Good luck though!
This has intrigued me for many years. Faith as I understand it, is the evidence of things unseen and things hoped for. So seeking empirical evidence for God in whatever activity is, by definition, outside matters of faith. I guess the closest we can come to is personal experience, but that is subjective… 
And then there is all that theology on transcendence etc … 
There may be times when the distinction between prescriptive vs descriptive is important. But in this case the insistence that you descriptively “can’t” do something has the same practical effect.
If the larger scientific community, or Biologos, says that intelligent design “can’t” be demonstrated scientifically or empirically, then it matters little whether they intend this to be prescriptive or descriptive. Any claim by anyone of seeing or finding evidence of intelligent agency will still be summarily rejected.
I have no doubt nor dispute that for the most part, Biologos and others embrace MN for “descriptive” reasons, not prescriptive. But in what way does that change our discussion? The fact still remains unchanged that, because of their beliefs about the (descriptive) limits of science, any conclusion about intelligent agency is not premature, it is wrong, no?
Thus I still maintain their position on MN, by definition, codifies their rejection of ID, unless I’m still missing something. I will completely grant your observation that Biologos is using methodological naturalism “descriptively,“ and that it is in no way a “prescription.“
How, then, does that in any way whatsoever change what I observed above?? MN still completely excludes intelligent agency from ever being considered. I will even change the words to clarify we’re talking about description…
The word “can’t” may have been a sub-optimal choice of words for the purposes of my point in that it preserves ambiguity between being prescriptive vs. merely descriptive. Replace it with the word “hasn’t” and I think the point is much better served.
Well … it would seem it has been wrong thus far anyway.
Change the words “are not able to include” to “have not been able to demonstrate”, and I’m with you.
But I guess our disagreement must persist when you add the conclusion:
This would follow only in the same way that, for example, perpetual motion machines have been “excluded” or unfairly kept out by our views of thermodynamics. It isn’t that anybody will ever get into trouble for attempting to make one. It’s that they’ve never succeeded thus far. Hence our lack of confidence that this will ever change.
It isn’t our disagreement, per say… I am in essential disagreement with you that the method of science should not summarily rule out certain conclusions a priori. It is Biologos own claim and method that I am disputing.
The term “methodological naturalism” would simply never be used to describe the fact that they haven’t yet discovered a non-natural (I.e.) intelligent cause to some phenomenon, even while their “method“ would indeed allow consideration of such.
If they were describing what you seem to think they’re claiming, then their position would be better described as “empiric naturalism” or “demonstrated naturalism“ or some such. “Methodological” naturalism implies a certain naturalism inherent in the “method”, rather than the conclusions, does it not?
Or, forgive me for sounding dumbfounded… but are you really suggesting that by the term “methodological naturalism,” nothing whatsoever is implied about the “method”, and the term simply and solely means that they have not yet found any evidence of intelligent agency, although their method is indeed entirely open to such?
That’s a very good point. I think you are correct that the descriptor “methodological” does admit more than a simple expression of confidence that “because this has always worked so far anyway…we are sure it will always will” to something more like a prohibition - at least as it must sound to proponents. Is it an unfounded confidence, though? If your friend claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine, you might chastise others for not giving your friend a fair hearing. But can you blame them for any “premature” skepticism they may exhibit?
How can the Designer be a part of nature, when the Designer is the Source of nature?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.