That's interesting that this question should come up.
I've been reading
The Sensualistic Philosophy by Dabney (see
http://www.naphtali.com). While reading it, I'm struck by how much Dabney critiques in a way that is "pre-suppositional". By that I mean that, on the surface, he has the very same critiques of materialistic worldviews that you'll hear from a modern pre-suppositionalist.
I was actually thinking about a thread on this subject and don't want to sidetrack this discussion. I do know that Bahnsen in his History of Western Philosophy audio series and Frame too in his Apologetics audio both critique Common Sense Realism for being simplistic and not really very good philosophy.
Part of me is left thinking this after studying the history of philosophy: Why are we constantly trying to construct a philosophical system that is all encompassing? By that I mean an epistemology, metaphysic, and ethic. I've heard both Van Til and Clark criticized because it's not a full-orbed philosophical treatment.
But then (it seems to me) the way that a valid view of the world is judged is by academia and whether you've gotten everything to fit into the categories they've built over the last few thousand years.
My gut reaction is to say: Why do we need another system? The tools are useful to critique our thinking but one thing I do like about realism as opposed to some more insistent view is that it still insists on reasonable thinking but doesn't insist that all our thinking be shoehorned into a system external to the Word. My criticism of Clarkianism is primarily that it turns everything in the world into propositions but life is more than that. Philosophy has then become less a tool than a controlling influence.