You're missing his point. His point is that any conceivable evidence can (and has) been declared as consistent with an omnipotent Creator (since he/she/it might have just "felt like" making things that way), but that this line of argument is unparsimonious, *and* strongly begs the question of why the Creator seems to have chosen to make all life *look* like it's the product of evolution (if allegedly it is not).
Read this old post of mine for a lengthier treatment of the same point: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/902550/posts?page=984#984.
If evolution is scientific, it has nothing to say about God. Nor does it have to.
Nor does it, nor is he. He is making a point about epistemology, not evolution.
Not at all. Vade made the error that evidence regarding evolution, pro or con, informs us as to the mind of God.
Virtually every creationist believes this too.
< a beat >
It's amusing that I just wrote the foregoing before reading your link, because the phrase "the mind of God" comes up in both.
Vade wrote "an intelligent designer wouldn't have to mimic evolution so precisely." That's some grade AAA hubris. And it reprises more of the same from him, via the link you provided:
"In other words, no matter who's doing the designing, for whatever goal, the products of their design are wildly unlikely to fall *exactly* within the many and varied constraints that the results of evolution are."
Vade is lapsing into theology again. Why give ammunition to the ascientific impulses of the creationists?
As a general axiom, scientists make lousy theologians, and preachers make lousy phylogenists.