The short answer to this claim is that the constitutional mandate for neutrality towards religion makes no exception for methodological naturalism. There is no legal justification for the State s use of methodological naturalism to censor scientific evidence which supports theistic beliefs simply to promote evidence that denigrates those beliefs. Although the legal argument should be sufficient, there is also no logical or scientific rational for using methodological naturalism to suppress and censor the evidence. Although naturalism may work in some areas of science, it certainly makes no sense when you are investigating an issue such as the origin of life and its diversity. This is an area of inquiry where there are essentially only two hypotheses.
Life either is designed or it results only from chance and necessity.
If design is ruled out, not for evidentiary reasons but for philosophical ones, then you prejudge the question and the investigation. The same problem arises when you ask what causes life and its diversity. If only one of two possible answers is allowed, then the one allowed can never be logically or scientifically credible. Applying methodological naturalism to censor the evidence of design is also a perversion of the scientific method. The hallmark of the scientific method is the testing of the evidence for one hypothesis against the evidence that supports the competing hypothesis.