You have recognized the crux of the discussion about intelligent design,
methodological naturalism and the practice of science. If you look
through the archives, you will find that there has been a massive amount
of discussion on these topics, and I don't think anything has been
resolved. At best, there is a moderate amount of understanding of the
positions of various participants.
>Personally, I have little trouble with the concept that "we
.... need to think naturalistically in order to practice science". I
presented a paper on the subject at the ASA meeting last summer, and got
little objection from those in the audience.
The issue of divine intervention is more problematic. I feel most
comfortable with the view "intervention" implies some sort of autonomy
for the unverse. Since I view the universe as entirely contingent upon
God in all its behaviors, "intervention" is not a concept that I feel
necessary to explain.
I presume that this hasn't really answered your questions very much. I
know that you have a big project in thinking through all this.
Jim Behnke, Asbury College, Wilmore, KY 40390 firstname.lastname@example.org