If “intelligence” is defined in a way that requires the intelligent thing to be alive, then I think creativity clearly doesn’t require intelligence or life. The blog I wrote on for nine years before I switched to Medium features a comparison between nature and the zombie for that very reason. The blog is called “Rants within the Undead God,” nature being the zombie-like, living-dead god, because it has the eerie appearance but not the depth of being alive (just as natural selection only simulates intelligent design). The universe is clearly self-creative (it evolves and complexifies), without having any apparent mental or intelligent direction—unless something farfetched like a form of Hinduism is true, in which case the whole universe is the body of a cosmic mind.

Scientists may be interested in philosophy, but as an institution science branched off from philosophy a few centuries ago, so in practice scientists will indeed ignore philosophy and do their own thing. Or they’ll spitball once in a while and philosophize about their findings, but they’ll call those speculations part of science, without crediting philosophy.

As for the supernatural, I’ve written several articles on this and in particular on the difference between metaphysical supernaturalism and artificial anti-naturalism. Organic processes and artificiality (technology) are virtually miraculous, I say, for being anti-natural. Schrodinger shows the former with his point about the reversal of entropy, and the Anthropocene’s destruction of the biosphere shows the latter.