Well obviously I disagree with the above. Specifically your last point that 'ALL ofther possibilities are ruled out'. Once a Creator has been established, it must always be a consideration. Specifically, let's take the example of a new gene. Even a small one would be almost impossible to arise by chance. So what is more reasonable then, that the Creator designed it or that a chance which is more unlikely than winning the lottery a dozen times in a row made it? Seems to me that creation is a more reasonable answer once the existence of a Creator has been established. That is what intelligent design is about essentially. If one can show that the evolution of something is so unlikely that it is almost impossible, then one must assume design not a stochastic evolutionary process.
Also the stipulation you make for intelligent design is totally unfair. Certainly evolution could not pass such a test and it is doubtful that any scientific theory could pass a test where ALL other possibilities have been ruled out.
Darwin's finches have beaks that change size during periods of drought. When rain returns, beak sizes regress to the mean. If, however, a localized area within a portion of the finches' range experience an extended period of climate change, the beak sizes of the affected would be permanent, isolating that small subpopulation from the rest of the species. Variations in the subpop would be more dynamic than in the larger population, and there is a good chance that a few generations would see the subpopulation reproductively isolated from the main population, and would develop and adapt independently from that point forward.
The above is what I mean about the tautology of evolutionary theory. You are assuming that something will happen according to evolutionary theory and using it as proof of evolution. What has been observed is the regression to mean.
BTW - the finches show quite well a big problem with evolutionary theory. The quick changes due to environment and the 'return to mean' show that organisms adapt without mutation.
A creator has not been established. No one has provided any evidence of such. You have assumed a creator. All your subsequent conclusions derive from this. I have not assumed such. I refer you to the null hypothesis discussion above.
If one can show that the evolution of something is so unlikely that it is almost impossible, then one must assume design not a stochastic evolutionary process.
Again, false dichotomy. If one can show evolution is impossibly unlikely -- an event that has not occured save for misapplied mathematics-- then the only thing one can assume is that evolution via the methods described does not adequately explain diversity.
You are assuming that something will happen according to evolutionary theory and using it as proof of evolution. What has been observed is the regression to mean.
Seasonal variation in beak size HAS been observed. There is no reason to hypothesize a regression to the mean in the event of permanent climate change.
The quick changes due to environment and the 'return to mean' show that organisms adapt without mutation.
Exactly what do you think evolutionary theory states, anyway? Variation is the key. The source of variation is irrelevant.