Evolution without accidents and also no intelligence?

While I applaud Shapiro's courage in face of live, materialist/reductionist fire; the wrongheadedness of his statements still confound me.

What are 'natural explanations' and why is intelligence excluded from this solution set?

Define 'supernatural'? If intelligence is part of the driving force (or perhaps THE driving force?) behind life and its evolution is that 'supernatural'?  Or is it only the source of the intelligence itself that creates the problem?  (i.e., a/the 'God' perhaps?)

And why these constraints on the advancement of science?  Why must science fit or be limited by statements such as 'cannot accept supernatural arguments'?  Why doesn't this apply to non-testables such as string theory, etc?  Who's the arbiter of what is or is not 'supernatural'?

They're so twisted up in the fight against religious fundamentalists (which I understand) so as to have become mostly nonsensical in what they're saying.

I'd say the idea that intelligence is a driving force is, indeed, supernatural until such time as evidence is found for it. Note that I am not saying that it's supernatural by definition and so people should give up looking for it.

As far as science not accepting supernatural arguments, when was the last time a scientific question was settled with a supernatural answer? Perhaps what you mean is that science should be open to interesting possibilities that don't fit the usual mold?

~~ Paul