Criticism of Science versus Intelligent Design

I recently received a criticism of my article Science versus Intelligent Design by "Steve." I appreciate the criticism and am glad he left the comment.

In his comment, Steve said:

Spoken like an true Adventist and creationist. What you have succeeded in doing is simply regurgitating the Discovery Institute's arguement that science should change its essential methodology to accomodate your religious longings.

As pointed out by Intelligent Design advocate Dr. Michael Behe at the Dover trial - by allowing supernatural explanations into the realm of science one might just as well replace astronomy with astrology and chemistry with alchemy.

I'd rather not return to 13th century mysticism, thanks.

My first question is in response to Steve's initial statement.

What you have succeeded in doing is simply [arguing] that science should change its essential methodology to accomodate [sic] your religious longings.

Steve, there is more than one prevalent philosophy of science. Examples are materialism, methodological naturalism, naturalism, scientism, etc. All of these, to my knowledge, are argued for philosophically (or even theologically) and are a priori to scientific inquiry. They are not demonstrated to be true, or to be the correct methodology for scientific inquiry, by any scientific test that I am aware of.

If that is the case, then why am I not allowed the same opportunity to philosophically argue a methodology of science that I believe accurately describes the way the world really is?

allowing supernatural explanations into the realm of science one might just as well replace astronomy with astrology and chemistry with alchemy.

Why? Is it because one is concerned that, rather than looking for natural laws that explain the physical world, science will devolve into a mere "because God said so"? That is fine if you wish to argue the case, but please realize that you are not demonstrating any of this to be true via any actual use of the scientific method. You are arguing for it philosophically, but than are barring me from the same avenue of reasoning.

I'd rather not return to 13th century mysticism, thanks.

Neither would I. However, I don't believe that is the only available alternative to naturalism, materialism, what-have-you. I believe this is a false dichotomy.

Steve, I don't mind the criticism at all, but please show me where I am wrong.