Hardly. We are a result of natural processes yet we at times show indications of intelligence.
Have I denied that the natural processes we see around us are the result of an intelligent agent? Absolutely.
"For two millennia, the design argument provided an intellectual foundation for much of Western thought and was only recently replaced in science by the politics of the ‘young guard’ and the ‘x-club’ that embraced Darwin’s theory as a avenue towards their beliefs.
The process we now call Methodological Naturalism is a direct offshoot of Newton and other religious scientists who realized that because God is not capricious and would not interfere with the regularity and constancy of nature in such a way as to invalidate their examination of nature God can be ignored within the methods used. Despite what you believe to be the philosophical underpinnings of much of Western thought, the methodology of science was designed, by an intelligence, to minimize the influence of an individual's belief system on the results of his/her science.
Your whining about the putative abandonment of the 'Intelligent Designer (God)' within the practice of science does not invalidate the fact that scientists, even religious scientists, recognize that the Intelligent Designer needs to be removed from the process of examining nature. However if you want to put your Intelligent Designer under the microscope, then the physical evidence of its work can be examined by science. That evidence must be better explained by an intelligence than by non-intelligence for it to be followed. So far we haven't seen such evidence.
Come up with some good evidence for your ID's existence and science will consider design in nature.
Whining? Do you deny that an intelligent cause ‘was’ a given within science for two millennia and proceeded Christianity? Are you so naive to think that modern scientists do not see any intelligence or any design in our existence (or would you prefer all to focus only on those who do not)? Even agnostic Greek philosophers made reference to a ’prime mover’ at the beginning.
Beyond this, what are we to do with those who believe in human consciousness within the recently imposed Methodological Naturalism constraints? Are those who ‘believe’ human consciousness the next in line for the ‘anti-science’ label? Surely you realize that human consciousness under the current paradigm must merely be an "emergent property" of the complexity of the processes and structures underlying its expression. IOW our intelligence (morality, love, altruism, etc..) must ultimately come from this unintelligent and un-designed universe. Obviously those who believe otherwise must believe in a soul or some sort of dualism that cannot exist in Methodological Naturalism and must therefore be labeled as anti-science.
Heck, let’s just take a look at how ‘current’ science defines our human consciousness as qualitative piece parts:
DAWKINS: (snip)"…But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?"This is what you are left with… Human consciousness; it’s all an illusion that exists for no ultimate reason. We, as humans, ‘think/believe’ we fortuitously stumbled accidentally upon this via science. To ‘believe’ that our morals, the beauty that we see, art, literature, and science itself came from something other than a mindless cause is heresy within this ‘current’ paradigm of science.PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives…"(end snip)
Come up with some good evidence for your ID's existence and science will consider design in nature.
No… This is ‘current’ science and 'your' philosophy - so you must tell us all how we evolved our morality and how it is actually an illusion because morality does not actually exist in the universe we live in… The ownness is with you.