All of these scientists believed in intelligent design. ID was the reigning scientific paradigm until 1860. The argument was bitterly fought in the scientific community, evolution won, and science has moved on. Proof that science, over time, can alter its worldview.
Now, to achieve a similar revolution in favor of ID, you must do more than simply point out gaps in observation and knowledge. You must tell an alternate story that has predictive power. For example, you must propose a hypothetical discovery or bit of evidence that is consistent with ID but not evolution. This must be something that is currently unknown or unfound. Not only must you predict the existence of something that has not yet been found, but you must offer a hypothesis explaining why you believe it exists and where you might expect to find it. You have to overcome 140 years of finding things that were anticipated by evolutionists.
Among the things not known to Darwin are: radioactivity, fission, fusion, genetics, DNA, mutations (as a broad category), tens of thousands of new fossils, all of which fit as expected into a time and structure line.
What you need is something like a serial or part number attached to each individual species -- something not part of the function of the organism.
There was no such term as ID in 1700. These men were THEISTS. Let's get the fact straight shall we? There was no bitter argument because Darwinism was not even a consideration at that time. The discoveries were possible because these men had the correct worldview. Without the correct worldview, these discoveries could not be made. Evolution won because they FORCED their view on everyone else, as they do today. Our public schools are hotbeds for indoctrination not just into evolutoin, but into the bogus philosophies behind it - empiricism, materialism, naturalism. Are you going to deny there is no philosophy behind darwinism.
You must tell an alternate story that has predictive power.
Thanks for admitting evolution is a "story." Logically, even if I could not come up with an alternate theory (which I already have in a creator), that does not prove evolution to be true. Evolution can not be true by default - it must be true because it is true and can be demonstrated.
Among the things not known to Darwin are: radioactivity, fission, fusion, genetics, DNA, mutations (as a broad category), tens of thousands of new fossils, all of which fit as expected into a time and structure line. Yes, and the complexity of the "simple cell" hmm? And the gaps in the fossil record. I do not see where these fossils "fit as expected into a time and structure line." That is a false statement. Where is the evidence for that? Where are all of those transitional intermediate forms - there should be billions of them. Everything I have seen is a fully formed phyla - where are the transitional phyla? You think evolution is science, then you won't have any trouble explaining to me how information is added to the genome in the molecule-to-man process; or how the first protein molecule self-assembled. I'm still waiting for someone, anyone (in the world!) to explain these to me in the form of scientific evidence. All I ever get are fantastic just-so stories which is not science at all. Would you like to take a crack at it?