Science has demonstrated itself to be extremely useful in revealing the natural world. Any thoughtful theist is not opposed to science. What I am opposed to is the philosophical assumptions or extrapolations that are made and declared scientific, primarily, naturalism.
While many eyes roll instinctively at the mention of intelligent design, my point is not to provide the case for ID. Rather, the intention is to illustrate that it is not science that discards intelligent design from being possible. Remember, the purpose of science is to examine what happens in the natural world. Nothing intrinsic to that statement makes design an anti-scientific possibility just as paleontology is not anti-scientific for using design to make discoveries. If intelligent design is being discarded as being anti-scientific or 'magical', it is on the basis of a naturalistic philosophy, not because of science.
While I agree that some do misuse science for philosophical naturalism when all science does is use methodological naturalism, I'm sick to the back teeth of theists jumping all over this instead of getting off their fucking arses and providing an alternative method for falsifying supernatural claims. Yeah, that's right, this includes you. Yes, you have a point but all you are doing is exacerbating the issue. Why not put an end to all of this philosophical naturalism and provide your alternative methods which will falsify it?
And the natural world is restricted to natural explanations..... by definition. This does not eliminate some external influence to nature. All it means is that we perceive what has been changed in nature, not it being changed. We are plugged into the matrix and we cannot see the computer whiz kid sat in front of his screens altering the scrolling green code.
If I may address your second point first, in examining the natural world, there is no logical reason that discounts non-natural explanations from being a valid conclusion. As I have written, biological life is replete with examples of design that are far more advanced than our own designs. Given the fact of the extreme mathematical improbability of random mutations and natural selection to generate specified complexity and the fact that we experience the causal ability of intelligence to design analogous systems, the presence of a designing intelligence can only be discarded by willful ignorance or philosophical bias.
Your reply makes it unclear whether you are looking for reasons to think philosophical naturalism is false or how ID could been shown to be false. I suppose both are pertinent and interrelated.
Philosophical naturalism holds that the everything that exists does so within the spatiotemporal universe, that everything, in theory, is reducible to the language of natural science and explainable in scientific theories. In order to show naturalism false, all that is required is to demonstrate that it is plausible that at least one thing exist outside the spatiotemporal universe; in other words, if something that exists can not be reduced to mere physical properties, then naturalism is false.
I contend that the mind and mental states are different from the brain and brain states. In order to show that two things are different, I will use the law of the indiscernibility of identicals which states that for x and y, if x and y are identical, then for any property P, P will be true of x if and only if P is true of y. Essentially, everything is identical to itself. If there is a property that is true of x but not of y, x and y are not identical and thus, two different things. Though there are more, three examples should demonstrate that mental states have different properties than brain states, and thus are two different things and not reducible to natural descriptions.
First, intentionality is a property of mental states and not brain states. This refers to the 'of-ness' or 'about-ness' of our mental states. Our thoughts are always about something. We think about tomorrow, or about that new car, or about our next forum post. On the other hand, intentionality is not a property of physical objects. Neurons are not 'about' the next bill payment. Physical objects can be in spatial or causal relation, but they are not about any thing the way that mental states are.
Second, mental states are incorrigible, that is, we cannot be mistaken about our mental state. We are incapable of not knowing what we are thinking. Explaining our thoughts can be difficult or we may be wrong in our thinking but we do not have to explain our thoughts to ourselves. We know our mental states incorrigibly. Certainly, we can be and often are wrong when it comes to knowing physical objects, including brain states. We do not know physical objects incorrigibly.
Third, personal identity is best explained through the existence of a mind. One does not have the same body as when one was younger and, yet, one is the still the same person. If our personal identity is explained in purely physical terms, we would have to admit we are a different person. Changing just one cell would create a new person. However, we know this is not the case. Introspectively, we are all aware that we have maintained our personal identity over time. A mind best explains this continuity of personal identity over time.
Since I am sure it will come up, simply because changes to the brain can change one's mental state, it does not mean they are the same. The fact that mental states and brain states are causally connected in not sufficient to say they are identical. To be identical, tt is necessary so have the same properties. As I have shown, the mind and mental states have different properties than the brain and brain states. Therefore, they are not the same thing, the mind is not reducible to a physical description and thus, naturalism is found deficient.
If a mind exists in a non-spatiotemporal state, intelligent design is all the more likely. In fact, the existence of a mind is more explainable, perhaps even expected, if ID is true.
Regarding the falsification of ID, as with all scientific theories, it is not logically possible to falsify. One can always posit logical possibilities to overcome obstacles. More appropriately, ID can be refuted easily by producing a clear, defined and demonstrable naturalistic pathway to generate specified complexity. If random mutation, natural selection, and lots of time were adequately capable or even marginally possible of such a task, I don't think intelligent guys like Stephen Jay Gould would be submitting theories such as punctuated equilibrium or Crick's directed panspermia?
In the end, philosophical naturalism is unlikely and natural explanations have been insufficient. Alternatively, the exist of a mind is plausible and intelligence is the only known cause of specified complexity. Why must every conceivable naturalistic possibility be examined before intelligent design gets a fair hearing? Why not assume apparent design is actual design?