Did evolutionary scientists not understand these things already?
If you’re going to engage people on the topic of intelligent design publications, don’t let them force two false assumptions on you.
In a 2005 article, Michael Powell begins by half-apologetically acknowledging that his newspaper has, in the editorial pages, taken a harsher view of ID than he evidently does.
I can describe anything you like in whatever detail you like, but you can’t know whether it exists or not merely by its description.
Science doesn’t need methodological naturalism. It doesn’t need methodological theism, either.