Doesnt this pose a problem for the definition of “natural”. If we cant differentiate natural from artificial, then every claim of evolution by “natural processes” is an untested assumption.
Let me suggest a thought experiment. Suppose evolution received help in Designing life from an unknown intelligent agency. If we continue explaining every observation with respect to evolution using natural processes… Then wouldn’t these “natural processes” themselves take on the qualities of the agency that designed life? If the agency is creative and intelligent, then these natural processes would also be creative and intelligent…
Is it legitimate to impose creativity on nature? Yet we see this very same tendency in all scientific explanations of Evolution. Nature is intelligent, creative, capable of feats that human designers cannot even dream of… while remaining purposeless and unintelligent.
In a certain sense, descriptions of what natural selection can do sounds divine… Its a strange irony.