[If anyone is new, TE=theistic evolution(ist), MN=methodological
naturalism, ID=intelligent design, YE=young earth]
However, MN may also function as a working hypothesis, to be rejected if
adequate contrary evidence is found. I believe that this is a more
accurate description of the views of all Christian TEs (as opposed to
deists). The assumption that most of God's sustenance of nature is
"natural" may be based both upon the observed rarity of miracles in the
Bible, history, and our own experience and upon the need for things to
behave predictably for us to fulfill our calling as stewards over creation
(Gn. 1:26).
On the other hand, such a criticism can be applied to many ID or YE
advocates. Insisting that God had to have intervened non-naturally in
creation is just as much a constraint as insisting that he must not have.
In creation (as opposed to in history), the latter is a much better
approximation of the observed patterns.
The statement is also grossly in error in asserting that positive evidence
for a creator must come from non-natural evidence. Although he is grossly
in error in missing the basic Cause, even Dawkins recognizes that
scientific explanations should contribute to, rather than detract from, our
wonder at creation.
David C.