Changes

First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]].  Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let "evidence lead the inquiry" and "general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process."<ref>See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.</ref>  Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process.  Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.

First there is the inductive method espoused by [[Francis Bacon]].  Bacon pioneered the modern notion that science should let "evidence lead the inquiry" and "general axioms ought to be the end, not the beginning, of the scientific process."<ref>See, Cornelius G. Hunter, ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, (Brazos Press, 2007), p. 15.</ref>  Bacon specifically formulated his scientific method to ensure that religious speculation (including speculation about naturalism) was excluded from the scientific process.  Thus, Bacon's scientific method proceeded based on observations of nature, and logical inferences derived from those observations.

Second, there is the deductive method espoused by Rene Descartess.  Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.<ref>See, Hunter, p. 17.</ref> According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which "What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations.  Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all."

Second, there is the deductive method espoused by Rene Descartes.  Descartes argued that science needed mechanical, or naturalistic, descriptions that could explain, rather than merely label, the effects.<ref>See, Hunter, p. 17.</ref> According to Cornelius Hunter, in his book ''Science's Blind Spot, the Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism,'' Descartes proposed a method of science in which "What science needed were naturalistic descriptions, even if they were not known to be true explanations.  Thus, Cartesian explanations were hypothetical; Descartes argued that having a plausible yet incorrect description was better than no description at all."

Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is "science" depends on what approach one takes to science.  If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science.  Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry.  Methodological naturalists place the "natural causes only" constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.

Therefore, whether or not intelligent design is "science" depends on what approach one takes to science.  If one takes the Baconian approach, letting the evidence lead the inquiry without presuppositions, intelligent design is science.  Moreover, if one takes the Cartesian approach, intelligent design of biological systems can still be science; it depends on what hypothetical constraints are put upon scientific inquiry.  Methodological naturalists place the "natural causes only" constraint on all scientific inquiry, and, therefore, define out of science the notion of any non-natural designer.