I here two conflicting narratives on ID, and I"m not sure which you really believe. Can you help me sort this out?
First, on one hand, some times we hear the narrative that ID is totally revolutionary for every aspect of science.
Second, on the other hand, some times we hear the narrative that allowing for ID in science would leave everything intact except a narrow set of questions about origins. This usually comes up when people are arguing against methodological naturalism.
Which one is it? Or how do these two things fit together?