Thomist philosophy is not compatible with Intelligent Design, as some ID proponents have discovered the hard way. This may come as a surprise to some, since Thomists do tend to be religious conservatives, but Thomism really cannot abide ID, or to put it more clearly, Thomism clearly exposes the rotten, foolish core of Intelligent Design in much the same way cream or ivory appear white until you put them next to something that is truly white.
One of my favorite Jesuits, Edward T. Oakes, replied incisively to his critics in First Things after reviewing The Wedge of Truth in that journal. Oakes takes ID to task for its philosophical naiveté, specifically for confusing final and efficient casuality. ID would require the Creator of the universe to micromanage His creation, a considerable demotion. Oakes regards ID as the best breeding ground for appalling ignoramuses such as Richard Dawkins, because it is so ridiculous it is easy to refute. Dawkins imagines he has refuted all religion when in fact he is tiling at windmills.
Oakes makes a passing reference to complexity theory and the Santa Fe Institute. Just as a robust philosophy and theology has nothing to fear from evolution, a robust biology has better explanations than random walks and Just-So Stories. Biology will probably reincorporate some kind of final causality to explain the much less than random tendencies that evolution exhibits. I await this eagerly, because it will herald the coming of a much better philosophy of science.
h/t Edward Feser
Cross-posted to Dead Philosophers Society