> But this is pre-empting the outcome. IF there is a natural
> explanation, then science ought to be able to figure it out. If the
> intelligent designer has acted in a way that falls outside the realm
> of "natural", science will not be able to figure it out. This is
> not just an issue of "motives". IMO theists should allow, in our
> thinking, both natural and non-natural causation. To do otherwise
> drives us towards deism.
I don't think any of the Christian methodological naturalists are suggesting
that science is the complete picture of reality. Hence, this limitation on
science is not a limitation on reality, or on reason more broadly construed
(e.g., not a limit on philosophy).
Since there's no limit on reason or reality, but simply on science (for a
variety of good reasons, I think), I don't see how it would drive us to
deism.
Now if we accept scientism, THEN methodological naturalism would imply at
best deism but more likely metaphysical naturalism; but who accepts
scientism??
(I'm sure you don't; yet your argument here makes it seem like you do. Or
am I missing something?)
John