[GourmetDan]

"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."

This is a good example of how philosophical naturalism has destroyed critical-thinking skills in 'science'. It is assumed even though no one can explain how it 'works'. It is accepted even though these non-existent 'workings' are not reproducible or predictable.

Typically, what follows is an appeal to observations that are consistent with both creation and evolution along with the fallacy of affirming the consequent resolved exclusively in favor of evolution.

[freedumb2003]

Typically, what follows is an appeal to observations that are consistent with both creation and evolution along with the fallacy of affirming the consequent resolved exclusively in favor of evolution.

Interesting -- can you please answer the question? Please provide a single modern mechanism that relies on "non-naturalism."