An alternate look at Naturalism

ID posits an agent that is literally designing nature. I simply can't see how such an agent could be considered supernatural? It is defining nature. 

Unless I am missing something fundamental about ID, it should be completely amenable to the tenets of Methodological Naturalism, irrespective of one's favoured reality model. Meyer and his DI chums just need to be more specific about what they are proposing in order to design testable hypotheses to falsify. Unfortunately, remaining vague and cagey seems to suit their (well documented) purposes/agendas.

Methodological naturalism can discover whether or not it is capricious, I think. As far as I can tell, that seems to be what makes something "supernatural". So there's no a priori prohibition against the "supernatural", but rather just a recognition that MN will have difficulty saying something useful about a capricious agent. MN could find that the designing agent is not capricious, though.

Linda