You do if you want to call the inclusion of supernatural causes into the physical and natural sciences.Of course, if you merely propose the supernatural as a philosophical avenue of investigation, that's totally different."Expected material consequences" implies materialism. Materialism is another favorite creationist complaint right along with the naturalistic methodology of science. My comment that "naturalistic methodology" is a "realistic recognition of the limitations of the physical and natural sciences" seems to right along the lines of your statement about "pragmatic naturalism." We may not be all that far apart.
That's fine, but you can't simply suspend the natural and physical laws and claim you're still doing natural or physical science science. You also need to propose a way to test your hypothesis. Of course, planetary motions have been fully explained by purely "naturalistic processes. It is interesting that you would cite Newton because of the Newtonian synthesis..... that the natural laws apply at all times and in all places.
While it could be that something doesn't look plausible under "only naturalistic processes" could mean it is not the result of natural processes, it is also possible that it is the result of natural processes we don't fully understand. The planetary motions example is a good one. Newton was not able to explain the orbit of Mercury by his laws. It was not until Einstein developed the theories of relativity that Mercury's orbit was fully explained ..... by purely natural processes.
I find it amusing you would invoke Newton to support introduction of non-natural processes for two reasons:
1) Newton's scientific explanations proposed only natural processes and solutions.
2) The Newtonian Synthesis which basically says the natural laws apply at all times and in all places.
Before I answer your questions, I ask you to reply to one that I previously presented.....
Why do we call them NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences?
I suspect your answer will show we may not be that far apart here either. Instead of a "hijacking of science by naturalists," the limitations of "naturalistic methodologies" are a pragmatic recognition of the necessary limitations of natural and physical science.Gould also recognized that along the margins, the magistra of science and religion do bump into each other.I agree Gould wasn't a philosopher. It is equally true that such "real philosophers as Plantinga are not paleontologists or molecular biologists either.What on Earth makes you think I haven't actually studied the philosophical arguments of the other side? You need to understand, it was the philosophical arguments (and direct observational evidence) that led to my rejection of YEC and acceptance of evolution as a process of creation used by God.
First of all I'll try to answer your question: "Why do we call them NATURAL and PHYSICAL sciences?"
The answer is simply that we don't, we call it science. Abiogenesis belongs to the group Life Science rather than Physical Science. And natural science only refers to science used to investigate nature, which could be both Life Science or Physical Science. Nothing of this as anything to do with methodological naturalism.
Who(except you) is suggesting that supernatural methods is needed in order to allow a hypothesis in science to make references to God? What do you even mean by something called "supernatural methods"? Or to be concrete. What "supernatural test" or which "supernatural method" is needed, if I want to evalute if the hypothesis that God created kinds is consistent with the current fossil record? Can't I just use the hypothetico-deductive method to see if the fossil record gives support for my hypothesis or not? When and why do I need these supernatural things you are talking about?
Why couldn't a hypothesis that makes reference to God be part of science? Which philosophical reason do you have to believe such things?
You haven't even begun to try and explain why you think this is the case. The article I referred to earlier on the other hand goes through and discuss this, you don't. For example do you think that Methodological Naturalism is true by definition, or is it that you think that "Functional Integrity" requires Methodological Naturalism? Or what do you believe?
And why do you believe that planetary motion is "fully explained"? Newton’s comment on the instability of the planets is worth quoting: “the Planets move one and the same way in Orbs concentric, some inconsiderable Irregularities excepted, which may have arisen from the mutual Actions of Comets and Planets upon one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this System wants a Reformation.” Evidently Newton believed that the solar system was unstable due to the n-body problem, and that occasional divine intervention was required to restore the well-spaced, nearly circular planetary orbits that we observe today. Does that mean that Newtons work on planetary motion is not science, just because he refereed to God in his published work?