Actually, what she's doing is residing within the same working paradigm of Methodological Naturalism that atheist and science educator, Eugenie Scott, as well as Christian geneticist, Francis Collins, work within, as opposed to the other paradigm of Philosophical Naturalism that is utilized by those like Richard Dawkins.
We will need to start a new thread altogether to discuss methodological naturalism. I think that it eliminates scientific questions that other science disciplines use every day. Further it definitially eliminates inferences to causes other than natural ones.
So if a archeologist or a forensic scientist were to apply methodological naturalism they would be instantly and forever unemployed.
Further if I was to ask 1000 or the best geologists why a mountain top in SD has the appearance of 4 previous US Presidents on it, they wouldn't be able to answer that question in a 1000 years.
So something has gone wrong from the start to say that science is the best way of getting out the world we live in and yet it can't make simple pronouncements like, "This structure is manmade."
When SETI was looking for a relatively small amount of complex specified information, in order to claim life on other planets, as compared to the information required for us to recognize 4 heads of 4 former US Presidents, again we say wait, if we applied MN to Carl Sagan's quest we would never be able to get an answer.
So we can take any causal analysis and play the MN game. What caused the pool ball to fall into the corner pocket...Gravity. But what caused it to move...force was transferred from a cue ball to the object ball with angle and velocity. But what caused the cue ball to move?
So if we short-circuit the descriptions so that they are
not explanations of efficient cause (to steal a distinction from Aristotle), then we are left with a brute description without answering many of the ultimate questions. In fact we couldn't infer natural causes as efficient causes either given this short circuiting. as MN refuses to ask us why things are the way they are.
This is a thread-worthy discussion. It is controversial and needs deep exploration, not cursory glosses.
Note: Eugenie Scott is best deleted from all references as she is a propagandist. She makes Ray Comfort talking about YEC look credible.