In the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision the honorable Judge Jones writes (or rather, to be more accurate, regurgitates from the complainants):
While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.
If only this was true.
If this were the true ground rule of modern science then how is it that the chance & necessity narrative of prehistoric evolution is observed, tested, replicated, and verified?
What methodology is used to determine that random chance and not intentional design is behind of the origin and diversification of life?
What test was performed and replicated to demonstrate that bats, whales, and humans came about purely by chance from reptilian ancestors or that reptiles are an accidental consequence of single celled organisms changing at random over vast periods of time?
If the same standard applied to the design narrative is applied to the chance narrative both of them would be thrown out of court and out of science classrooms.
Meanwhile, what tests have actually been done shows that complex machines, even biological machinery, can be created by intelligent agents. No direct observation has confirmed that any other pathway exists for complex machinery to emerge other than through participation of an intelligent entity. The only demonstrable method for the emergence of complexity is thrown out by judicial fiat and an unsubstantiated, undemonstrated claim that extreme functional complexity can be built up by a stochastic process is legally enforced as the only acceptable story that can be presented in a public school. Incredible.