I agree with you regarding operational procedure in science. Of course, as we both realize, there are some non-mechanistic presuppositions behind the whole scientific endeavor, but once they become part of the scientific Weltbild, then it must be mechanistic from then on! This historical problem that I am working on is one of the strongest evidences of this. For it turns out that it was not until science restricted itself to efficient causes (excluding its ability to work with final causes) that it really flowered. This, of course, was what prevented Greek science from developing. I have thoroughly shown that the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinos, and almost all the Greek philosophers believed that you could enter into ”the mind of the divine” and discover the patterns in nature by operating with final causes, that is, teleologically. It was only when science gave up the search f or final causes, and concentrated on efficient causes, that we had the Scientific Revolution.”  

– From the ASA Journal, JASA, March 1959  

He”s talking about ”procedural naturalism” I believe it is called. Whether you believe in God or not, you proceed as if no god exists when you are doing scientific research. You are just trying to figure out how things work. Newton, who certainly believed in God, did this when studying the movement of the planets. To say ”God makes them move as they do” is true, but doesn”t get us far in understanding God”s creation.  

I think this is one of the problems with Intelligent Design. Though I believe it is true that God is behind all that exists and all of the development of species, that belief is not related to scientific study. I don”t know of a particular view that ID would put forward, other than the cases I am aware of, where they say, ”Well this is real complicated and it couldn’t possibily have evolved.”  

”Efficient causes,” as the quote above refers to, is the actual study that scientists engage in — how things work, including how evolution works.

(comment by Finbad Lockley:)

This is a helpful distinction, and one I would agree with. I don’t think ID folks would disagree either, however. ID folks are concerned that many of the outspoken evolutionists (e.g., the so-called “new atheists”) are not keeping the distinction clear, either. So, for example, when Dawkins argues that there is absolutely no designer, and all the evidence for design is merely an illusion, he seems to be moving away from efficient causes into teleology.

From my reading, the ID folks are concerned about the philosophic naturalism that seems to undergird the scientific community and which, as they see it, does not allow a theist who happens to be a creationist to become a respected, tenured research scientist unless he (publicly, at least) embraces evolution.

Their other belief, of course, is that organic evolution simply is unsupportable as a theory. But that”s another discussion.