Dismissive naturalism

I fear that James D. Williams (Letters, 9 October) may be confusing science with naturalism. Science pursues knowledge by following the evidence. Naturalism restricts itself by excluding the possibility of the supernatural, so is forced to reject some evidence.

For example, evidence of design ought to be regarded as possible evidence for a Designer.

Naturalism has to dismiss this as the mere appearance of design because there are some places to which naturalism has decided not to go when following the evidence. This raises a question: is naturalism falsifiable? What kind of contrary evidence might be accepted?

Dave Kimber, St Neots, Cambridgeshire.