Methodological naturalism

Claim

Evolution is materialistic; it requires methodological naturalism. It irrationally rules out the possibility of any divine outside influence.

Johnson, Phillip E., 1990 (Oct.). Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. First Things [1]
Dembski, William A., 1998. What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design. [2]

Science is about concepts which can be confirmed or denied by empirical evidence. As soon as someone devises an experimental protocol to empirically detect the effects of Divine intervention, science will be perfectly happy to use that protocol to confirm or deny the existence of Divine intervention, and, if it is so confirmed, acknowledge the reality of Divine intervention. Until that time, science can no more take Divine intervention into account than it can take leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn into account.
Yet many religions accept evolution while still promoting a belief in the divine.
It is not irrational to rule out the possibility of divine influence. It is, in fact, irrational to suggest that divine influence is a necessary step towards explaining any natural phenomenon. The claimant contradicts the definitions of "rational" and especially "rationalism". Also, "methodological naturalism" is just a long-winded way to say "science". The terms are synonymous, e.g. if a phenomenon is scientific, it isn't supernatural.
add more responses