I didn’t express the concern that science cannot discuss design because design belongs to the world of values, purpose and meaning, though I remember someone else expressing it earlier on this thread.
The concern I have expressed is this: When design is inferred, if it is required that the designer itself be explainable within MN, then philosophical naturalism is governing the whole enterprise of scientific reasoning.
This takes us back to the OP and the problem that @dga471 had with the article on BioLogos specifically (and TE/EC more broadly) that the OP referred to. And the problem is this: TE/EC is an attempt to integrate Christianity, which by definition recognizes a supernatural God who sometimes does intervene in the natural world in discernible ways, with a paradigm of science that rules out a priori any recognition of supernatural reality. Biblical Christianity and philosophical naturalism cannot be integrated. They make mutually exclusive claims about the nature of reality.