Re:SCOTUS reference anybody? (Score 1)

I am a scientist who uses the scientific method to study the world around me on a daily basis. There is no part of the scientific method which states that I must exclude certain conclusions because they are not "popular" or because they do not fit in with the current "world view" of biology. If I were to adopt this belief, I would be self-censoring myself and biasing my research in a way that is the antithesis of the scientific method. I believe that there is sufficient evidence available, at the bio-chemical level, to raise serve doubts about a pure evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life. As far as I am concerned, there are clear signals, at the biochemical level, that strongly support the idea of design. The scientific evidence that is available does not indicate the source of this design and so it does not support the idea of a "god". All it says is that at some point in the development of life there has been an intervention by an "intelligence" that has influenced the eventual outcome that we see today. Claims that design plays a role in the development of life do not necessarily rule out evolutionary biology (both at the macro and micro level of change). A good analogy is to consider a car race. Inbuilt design in the development of racing cars may provide five or ten different basic car designs that can participate in a car race. However, it is the car race itself which actually weeds out the cars that are entered in the race and which produces the eventual (evolutionary) winner. Design comes into play in limiting the race entrants, in such a way as to ensure that cars that participate in the race have a fighting chance of completing the race. I believe that the scientific evidence strongly supports the position that without the initial level of "thought" and "design" at the bio-chemical level, the race of life may have not have got off the ground.