[Wallace T.]

I agree that science can be done without the assumption of non-intervention. However, the mainstream science that has been referred to by other posters make such an assumption. Granted, not all scientists assume non-intervention.

There is a certain arrogance among those who claim that the intelligent design group or the creationist group are not scientists because they do not adhere to random, unguided evolution. It is the equivalent of traditionalist Catholics denying the validity of the Eastern Orthodox or Anglican priesthood or hierarchy because those churches do not acknowledge Papal supremacy. To some, it appears that whether one is a scientist or not is dependent on their metaphysical views, not their credentials.

[js1138]

Granted, not all scientists assume non-intervention.

Scientists are free to believe in miracles, but not in their professional work. If a scientist encounters something unexplainable, the default scientific position is "I don't know how this happened."

[js1138]

Evolution is not unguided or random. It is guided and determined by selection, which is what Darwin discovered.

The acceptance of evolution as a historical fact does not require a theory of how or why mutations occur. Darwin had no such theory. He did not even have elementary genetic theory. Change could come from any of a number of causes, but changes are nothing without selection, which is the shaping force.

[Ichneumon]

There is a certain arrogance among those who claim that the intelligent design group or the creationist group are not scientists because they do not adhere to random, unguided evolution.

...and who exactly do you assert *make* such a claim?

I have *never* seen anyone, here or in the scientific community, claim that the ID/creationist group are "not scientists because they do not adhere to random, unguided evolution". No, instead the claim is made that they are not engaging in actual science because their *methods* are flawed.