9) If ID is a philosophy that drives science forward, why can't it co-exist with naturalism? Why does it have to be "either/or"?

ID is not in and of itself a philosophy. It is a testing mechanism challenging the philosophy that everything has a material, natural cause. And that should explain why it cannot co-exist with naturalism, as that is what it is challenging.

It's impossible to scientifically falsify a philosophy. Philosophy and science do not play by the same rules. Philosophy is a belief system that is largely speculative. Science is a system of knowledge that uncovers general truths about nature through the scientific method.

I would offer that science actually depends on philosophy to drive it. There are belief systems behind everything that men do, and science is no exception. Science simply does not exist in some sort of objective vacuum. It is worked with by men who hold beliefs and interpreted according to those beliefs.

Right, which is why Iassac Newton came up with the scientific method. I still say you still can't falsify a philosophy. Show me how?

Note: Here she is saying that ID is challenging naturalism and that is why they can not co-exist.