Just Exactly What the Heck is "Naturalistic Theory"?
I have to agree with Tanypteryx's concerns (Message 7). Just what the hell are you talking about when you say "naturalistic theory"?
When I started college in 1969, one of the first classes I enrolled in was Logic (admittedly inspired by CDR Spock, what with Star Trek:TOS having just been cancelled for the second and final time). One of the many things that I learned in that class is a basic rule in all valid debates: the first order of business is to define all your terms and come to an agreement with your opponent what those terms mean. That is vitally necessary to ensure that both sides are talking about the same things. Without that necessary first order of business, the two sides will end up just talking past each other by using the same words but with entirely different meanings. That kind of situation would defeat the very purpose of a valid debate, but rather it would support the efforts of one side to deceive the audience. That is exactly what creationist debates are about and how they operate.
For example, Aron Ra and Kent Hovind are having a YouTube debate. Aron Ra keeps working with the actual definition of evolution whereas Kent Hovind clings to his own misrepresentation of evolution -- HINT: when a creationist starts talking about different kinds of evolution including stellar evolution, then he is practicing Kent Hovind's deception. Thus Hovind repeatedly makes assertions about "evolutionism" (another red flag for creationist deception) which have absolutely nothing to do with actual evolution while ignoring all attempts to explain to him what evolution actually is.
Another problem with creationism's "evolutionism" is that they explicitly define it as being "atheistic", whereas that is not even remotely true of the science of evolution. The point is that creationists have created a misrepresentation of evolution which is loaded with a plethora of prejudice. Imagine entering a creationist debate snake-oil show as the opponent of the creationist. He's called a creationist, so what should you be called? When your opponent refers to you as an "evolutionist", you think that that sounds about right so you accept it without thinking too much about it. Well, you just played into his hands. The creationist portion of the audience which is usually in the majority knows the keywords and hears an admission of being an "evolutionist" as an admission of being an atheist as well as admitting to being dedicated to attacking and destroying Christianity. Of course, you as the opponent to the creationist believe no such things, but that is still what the creationist audience members see you as admitting to.
So then, here you are wanting to refute some stupid creationist strawman which you call "the naturalistic theory". Typical dishonest deceptive creationist trick. Well, fuck you and fuck your stupid evil deceptive God of Lies (contrasted with the Christian God of Truth). Sorry, but you really do need to do much better that that.
So what do you need to do? Well, the first step would be that you need to present what your "naturalistic theory" is supposed to be. Completely. What are your assumptions? What are your precise definitions of all terms? IOW, just what the hell are you talking about? Of course, you also need to be ready and willing to engage in sincere discussion with the other side in order to arrive at common terms and common definitions.
Until you do that, we have absolutely no idea just what the fuck you are talking about. In that case, nothing you could possibly say could possible be of any value at all.
I may also use the standard of evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” as required by criminal law. Not the “balance of probability” which is used in civil law. That means anything speculative will be deemed unacceptable.
It was on an episode of Nova that I first heard of the "Intelligence Design" founder lawyer Phillip Johnson and his book, "Darwin On Trial" (1991, though somehow my memory of that episode keeps trying to place it a decade earlier). His main point, which you have just echoed, is that courtroom rules of evidence must be applied to the work of science.
At the time, my immediate response was, "What a fucking idiot!" Science is not a courtroom procedure, but rather a police investigation. Applying courtroom rules to science as it conducts an investigation would prevent that investigation from ever happening. Rather, courtroom rules of evidence apply to the end results of an investigation. A police investigation needs to follow all possible clues, not only "evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'". Trying to apply rules to science that are contrary to the nature of science is complete and utter bullshit deception.