"Anyone else see the absurdity in this statement?"
Yes, it's based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism where only a material, natural origin is allowed for everything and anything that exists. This is then 'confirmed' post hoc through the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'.
It's a nice little bit of circular-thinking that underlies all 'scientific' theory. Basically, any theory that isn't based on the 'a priori' assumption of philosophical naturalism cannot be 'scientific' by definition.
The rationale for assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' is typically supported by the fallacy of equivocating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. That or the fallacy of 'appeal to consequences of a belief'.
In summary, they've already decided beforehand that nothing supports intelligent design and then proclaim so at every opportunity no matter how complex and improbable the reality.
That is correct. ID and Creationism cannot be part of science until you can explain how they work and how those workings can be used to establish a reproducible and predictable result.
As a follow-up, can you name any current scientific endeavor or discovery that does NOT operate from an "a priori" assumption that all of nature has standard and rigorous rules that are predictable and discoverable? Just one, which has become a physical, tangible product or discovery.
They are called the natural sciences for a reason, Dan. The observable is what the natural sciences have to work with. That is the ‘a priori’ you speak of, and that is as it should be.
How would a supernatural scientist be able to demonstrate, using the scientific method (would they even use the scientific method?), that it was the Christian God who created the universe instead of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? A defender of the FSM theology could quite simply attribute all of the actions to the FSM that you attribute to the Christian God, and the argument would be very short:
“yes it is”
“no it isn’t”