Let's take a look at that. If we include natural processes in the definition of intelligence, we broaden the definition of intelligence beyond the useful. With that definition, *any* selection, one of the main mechanisms behind evolution, becomes intelligent. It also removes any purpose to pursue ID.
"I think what this brou-ha-ha is ultimately about is methodological naturalism is a scientific method based on only two of Aristotle's four causes: the material and the efficient. It is a "reductionist" method, in that it omits to consider the formal and final causes. ID is interested in all four causes.
Why should science be concerned with anyone's dislike of 'reductionist' methods? Exactly what advantage would there be in adopting all of Aristotle's causes? What purpose is served by including those causes?
"Ultimately, this fight is not over a "creator." It's about what causes the scientific method ought to address, going forward. FWIW
Yet the result of including those causes is to open science up to the supernatural. How does this jibe with the claim that ID is not interested in the supernatural?
Jeepers, b_sharp, what is your definition of “useful?” Certain natural processes, such as DNA instructing the manufacture of proteins, are obviously intelligent processes. Intelligent processes per se are inexplicable on the basis of material and efficient causes alone. It is the formal and the final causes that bespeak of intelligence. It appears Neo-Darwinism prefers not to deal with this problem.
Just to be clear about what we’re speaking of here, may I put the four causes thusly, and very crudely:
Material cause is the “stuff” that “new stuff” is made of.
Efficient cause is the energy it takes to initiate and execute the physical manifestation of “new stuff,” utilizing “stuff.”
Formal cause is the plan or blueprint for our “new stuff” project.
Final cause is the purpose or goal for which the “new stuff” project was undertaken in the first place: its “reason.”
Now perhaps you will object that formal and final causes are not of interest to science. Okay, I can live with that. But that doesn’t give you a license to say that formal and final causes are irrelevant to the truth of reality. Or even that they do not exist — which is the position of the scientific materialist, a/k/a the metaphysical naturalist.
Yet the scientist who says such a thing is sawing off the very branch on which he himself sits.
FWIW.
Happy New Year, b_sharp!