I don't agree. The theory of evolution is based on the explicit assumtion that intelligent intervention (a term I think works better than "design") did not occur. The present controversy is centered on suggestions that intelligent intervention may have occurred, and the "scientists" are fighting hard against it. They won't even consider it unless somebody else provides them evidence of intelligent -- which says they've already decided for themselves that there is no intelligent intervention.
Furthermore, I think many are waiting to see evidence that an intelligent intervention did in fact occur during the process of devolpment from single-celled organisms to modern life. If such evidence is given, it will be considered.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. If you carefully consider the statement, you'll see that you have in fact a priori assumed that intelligent intervention did not occur, ever, not even once. Where is the positive evidence to back up that assumption?
On the flip side, we know for an absolute fact (i.e., we have abundant positive evidence) that intelligent intervention is responsible for many of the characteristics of the plant and animal life we commonly see around us. Thus, the idea of intelligent intervention is clearly not absurd -- it is in fact eminently believable, because it is commonly practiced.
Yet despite the clear positive evidence, and the basic reasonableness of the possibility of at least occasional intelligent intervention, we see the scientists fighting tooth and nail against the idea.
This raises an obvious question: given the positive evidence for design in common plant and animal life, is it valid to call your a priori assumption truly scientific, or is it more accurate to call it a materialist bias?
My goal on this thread is not to undertake the fool's errand of trying to disprove evolution; but rather to uncover the assumptions that underlie the "science" of evolution. As Einstein pointed out in defense of Relativity, real learning comes when one can identify, understand, and if necessary correct underlying assumptions. That exercise is equally necessary in this discussion.
I agree with you. Scientists do assume that intelligent intervention has never occurred. This is a result of Occam's Razor, however, and not any anti-materialistic bias. Occam's Razor states that if two explanations are equally good at explaining known observations, the simpler one should be accepted. The two explanations here are that all of the variety of life arose from natural processes OR that all of the variety of life arose from natural processes in addition to one or more intelligent interventions. If there's no data to show that interventions occurred, then, by Occam's Razor, it makes sense for scientists to assume that it didn't. If there were to be found observational data that showed that intelligent interventions were necessary, then honest scientists would have to accept this idea. (I am not saying that all of them would, just that if they are practicing science appropriately, they would.) It remains to ID proponents to show evidence that intelligent interventions must have occurred, rather than just arguing that the idea is not absurd. Good scientists are willing to overturn established theories. The burden of proof is on those who wish to overturn them, however.