In this article, I consider the famous Invisible Gardener Parable which aims to show that theism is not a viable theory because it can be endlessly amended to accommodate for prima facie disconfirming data. I point out that the parable fails to consider how tolerance for theory adjustment is relative to the perceived explanatory power of the theory. I also point out that naturalism is no less subject to adaptation than is theism. Thus, if endless adaptability constitutes an objection for theism then it does so for naturalism as well.