Hunter offers two counter-arguments to the "science stopper" argument. His first argument is that an insistence on naturalistic explanations in science doesn't reflect the reality of science. As evidence for this assertion, he cites the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligent (SETI):
SETI scans the cosmos for signals that are the result of extra-terrestrial civilization. In other words, SETI scans the cosmos for signals that are not the result of naturalistic processes--the very opposite of [the supposed] requirement that science only use "natural explanations."
No one would argue that SETI is a non-scientific endeavor. And yet, SETI is essentially a search for phenomena that cannot be explained naturalistically. Another example would be archaeology. If an archaeologist were to find a large stone in the shape of a human figure, he or she would not automatically assume that the only possible explanation for such a stone would be a natural process like erosion. He or she would be open to the possibility that the shape of the stone was due to an intelligent agent--namely, a human being. And yet, again, no one would argue that archaeology is not a scientific discipline.
Hunter's second argument is that the insistence on naturalistic explanations in science is "a belief, not a scientific finding." As he asks:
...what scientific experiment or finding has shown that the success and legitimacy of science hinges on strict naturalism? Or again, which experiment shows that accuracy and truth are to be found only in naturalism?
Hunter argues further that limiting science to strictly naturalistic explanations could potentially prevent scientists from discovering the true cause of some phenomena. It may even lead them to ignore the actual evidence if it cannot be squared with a naturalistic approach. In contrast, ID "does not rule out possible explanations a priori based on a dogmatic belief." Instead, it is open to both naturalistic and supernatural explanations. It is important to emphasize that ID does not rule out the possibility that some phenomena are the result of natural processes. Though it is caricatured as such by evolutionists, ID is not merely a "search for miracles and the supernatural."
In light of Hunter's arguments, I would say that a pretty strong case can be made that ID is not a "science stopper." However, I would go further: I would argue that the notion that some aspects of nature--which would include living organisms--show signs of having been designed by an intelligent designer was essential to the emergence of modern science. It has been pointed out by a number of historians of science that modern science developed within the context of the Judeo-Christian belief in a God who created the universe. That God of Jewish and Christian belief designed the universe according to His plan, and His designs can be detected by humans, since they, like Him, are intelligent beings, capable of using reason and logic to discover truth. Moreover, the God who created the universe established laws that govern the physical operations of the universe. Since these laws operate within nature, some phenomena can have purely naturalistic explanations--there is no need to appeal to the supernatural. However, it is also possible that some phenomena may have non-naturalistic explanations. Although many scientists today, including evolutionists, have rejected this belief in a God who is the Intelligent Designer of the universe, it is clear, in light of the history of science, that belief in Intelligent Design is not inconsistent with doing science. Thus, ID is not, nor has it ever been, a "science stopper."
Image of Cornelius Hunter from Discovery.org