Ridiculous. That's like saying that an artist's claim that a portrait represents its subject implies that the portrait is its subject. You understand the artist's claim; why are you confused by the scientist's equivalent claim?
To follow Roger Penrose, evolution is a useful theory without which "nothing in biology makes sense."
Dobzhansky, I believe.
Those phenomena may be a result of intelligent design, and explained through stochastic processes. For all the scientist knows, that was the intent of the designer.
And no scientist I know would disagree with that. This is strictly a debate about process, not about theology. The problem is that some people have made their theology contingent upon the specific process described in Genesis, and they take it personally when that process is shown to be false.
Does science tell us the Truth about Reality? If so, why do scientific theories change while Reality doesn't? Anyway, is there such a thing as Reality?
Dobzhansky, I believe.
I used Dobzhansky's quote within the context of Penrose's categrorization of theories, allow me to clarify:
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Theodosius Dobzhansky, Geneticist
Roger Penrose put theories in four categories, with examples: *
about which he says "No observational discrepancies with that theory are known -- yet its strength goes far beyond this, in the number of hitherto inexplicable phenomena that the theory now explains."
(Penrose refused to name any of these.)