The conjectures of evolution extend to ascribing historical derivations where they have not been directly observed. That is not to say the conjectures are fanciful or unreasonable or even unscientific. Arguments for intelligent design are not so much based upon history as upon the immediately observable details of integrated matter functioning purposefully, much as when one makes a machine and turns it loose.
Of course there is evidence for evolution, especially if one is predisposed toward methodological naturalism. I can live with the Theory of Evolution as a reasonable way of understanding origins and such (though I do not believe it). But I have grave difficulties accepting it as the law of the land. There are other ways to interpret the evidence that entail the same amount of reasonable conjecture.
"The conjectures of evolution extend to ascribing historical derivations where they have not been directly observed."
That's a fallacious argument. Speciation is directly observed and scientists also observe evolution in the fossil record. Events in the past leave evidence in the present, and quite honestly, the historical evidence is overwhelmingly.
"That is not to say the conjectures are fanciful or unreasonable or even unscientific."
Evolution isn't a conjecture but a scientific theory.
"Arguments for intelligent design are not so much based upon history as upon the immediately observable details of integrated matter functioning purposefully, much as when one makes a machine and turns it loose."
Yes, but those molecular organelles are quite efficiently produced by evolution. And, the explanation is far more parsimonious than ID.
"Of course there is evidence for evolution, especially if one is predisposed toward methodological naturalism. I can live with the Theory of Evolution as a reasonable way of understanding origins and such (though I do not believe it). But I have grave difficulties accepting it as the law of the land. There are other ways to interpret the evidence that entail the same amount of reasonable conjecture."
Possibly and that's why science is tentative by definition - to allow for change in probably inaccurate scientific theories. While ID I'm afraid has yet to make a case, if they can provide solid, positive evidence that's falsifiable, tentative, naturalistic, parsimonious, accurate, encompassing, and supported, I would be delighted and many biologists as well to be shown wrong.