Why would it not evidentially support non-naturalistic ID theory as well?
You are a clearer thinker by some margin than your main interlocutor, except
when it comes to theism, against which you seem to have an almost hysterical
grudge sometimes, a grudge that permeates otherwise more cogent areas of
your thinking.
> In any case, this is an area for research. But it does not help
> that Jone's
> and Behe pretend to have proved something when they've only just barely
> *begun*.
I think it would be very tempting but nonetheless a serious error to
conflate Michael Behe (or Nelson, Dembski, Meyer, et al) with his supporters
here. ID gets a quantitatively strong defense on this list, but the quality
is sadly lacking. Remember, I agree fully that ID is a philosophical
research program (no insult there, in my view), often supported by unsoundly
over-stated arguments, that conceivably may someday become scientific --
it's certainly not a serious scientific rival for evolution right now.
Behe et al are wrong, I think; but not (unlike some) incorrigible.