Thanks for the links. There’s too much there, but this is what I got:
1. " So science must be limited to using just natural forces in its explanations.This is sometimes referred to as the principle of methodological materialism in science: we explain the natural world using only matter, energy, and their interactions (materialism). Scientists use only methodological materialism because it is logical, but primarily because it works. We don’t need to use supernatural forces to explain nature, and we get farther in our understanding of nature by relying on natural causes."
2. “If science enforces MN, then it is obviously blind to God, His action, and His design.”
3. " So, rather than ruling out intelligence in general, MN rules out divine intelligence as a causal factor."
4. “There is no case in science where design is detectable independent of modeling the mind that produced it”
5. " Plantinga and Smith wrote: [I]t is extremely hard to see how an empirical science, such as biology, could address such a theological question as whether a process like evolution is or isn’t directed by God… How could an empirical inquiry possibly show that God was not guiding and directing evolution?"
6. Newton’s 4: " 1. admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
2. to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
3. qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
4. propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena."
This is good, but insufficient. Furthermore:
What is a “natural force”? As opposed to what? How would we know the difference?
What if we find out more than “matter, energy, and their interactions”? Particle physics shows that matter is itself quite immaterial.
What is “supernatural”? Isn’t the distinction natural/supernatural arbitrary?
How would one differentiate “divine intelligence” from “regular intelligence”?
Why would one absolutely need " modeling the mind"? When someone reverse-engineers a product (say military equipment), do they care about modeling the mind of it’s original inventor?
How would one reconcile Plantinga and Smith with Evolution being a “Blind, Unguided and Purposeless Process”
How are Newton’s 4 specific to MN? Are these rules or simply guidelines? If guidelines, they’re OK, but if rules they’re false, in particular 2 and 3 that have been overruled many times.