In point of fact (as shown later) secular evolutionists vehemently oppose the teaching that the universe and life on earth contain valid inferences of intelligent design. The reason for this is, of course, that such inferences are diametrically opposed to the materialistic philosophy of "naturalism" which they espouse.
The true situation, in relation to biological origins and in regard to creation as a whole, is, therefore, that there are two opposing metaphysical research programs: one which insists upon natural causes only, based upon random changes; and the other, known as natural theology, which insists that there is abundant evidence of intelligent design which is far beyond the capacity of human beings.
However, secular evolutionists claim that their metaphysical research program should be regarded as "science" and natural theology as non-science because science is concerned with natural causes only.8
This argument is a flagrant non-sequitur. While natural science does demand natural explanations, its theoretical scope does not extend to historical hypotheses, like evolution. True natural science is concerned with presently existing phenomena: it is not a philosophy of life.
The evolution/creation issue is therefore first and foremost and essentially one between a materialistic philosophy advocating a naturalism based upon chance and a theological philosophy claiming intelligent design and therefore the existence of a Transcendent Creator. Although it is also an issue between a materialism and revealed religion, it is capable of logical resolution by a comparison of the cases for each of the abovementioned philosophies.9
It is a fact of life that after 130 years of research evolutionists have not discovered any evidence at all from which any satisfactory inferences can be drawn in favor of their hypothesis,10 whereas discoveries by natural science as to order in the universe, the design and function of living systems and the properties of matter all contain irresistible inferences of an intelligently planned universe.
8 In a "friend of court" submission to the Supreme Court of the United States in the State of Louisiana appeal, the American Academy for the Sciences put this misleading argument. See Darwin on Trial (Reference 7 above) at p. 7.
9 Thus the evolution/creation issue is nothing more than the age old controversy between materialism and natural theology.
10 For a thorough dismantling of all of Darwin's arguments, see Dr. Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, published by Burnett Books in the U.K. and Adler and Adler in the U.S.A. in 1985/86. At the time of writing at least Dr. Denton, a molecular biologist, was an agnostic and therefore cannot be accused of bias. See also Darwin on Trial (Ref. 7 above).
Apart from these two substantial critiques of Darwinism and many others that could be named, there are numerous admissions by evolutionists that there are no intermediate (transitional) forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Colin Patterson (Ref. 3 above) has been recorded as saying that after twenty years of research he knew nothing that was true about evolution, and later that a watertight case could not be made out for the existence of any transitional fossil in the fossil record.
Sir Fred Hoyle in his 1993 book (Ref. 15 below) has made a strong attack upon the evolution theory, calling it "scientific fundamentalism" and pointing out that it is a failure in relation to fossils and geology. He points out that "the trunk and the main branches of the evolutionary" tree are missing and only exist in the evolutionist's imagination (see pp. 109-114).