Wow, evolution threads really bring out the ID folks.
I actually think it's a little endearing when people mention "circumstantial" evidence when they have NO idea what the term actually means. To illustrate, if there's no "direct evidence" of a murder (such as an eyewitness), is it o.k. to convict based on circumstantial evidence such as blood stains on the defendant's clothing, the presence of his fingerprints on a gun or knife, and presence of DNA samples from the defendant on the victim? Sounds sort of convincing to me, but then again, I know what the term "circumstantial" means...
By the way, I assume everyone has "direct" evidence of God's existence to back up this intelligent design hackery. By that, I mean, you have a LIVING person willing to testify that they met/saw/heard from God Almighty Himself. Someone whose believability/sanity we can judge for ourselves. Otherwise, it seems sort of silly to denigrate "circumstantial" evidence when the only evidence you have for your own theory is circumstantial.
(By the way, I believe in God, have FAITH in Him, and fear Him enough not to ascribe an asinine theory like intelligent design to Him.)
I'm not quite sure what intelligent design means.
I believe in God and I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to convince any jury on earth (except perhaps a Muslim one) that evolution is a fact.
Belief in God and the Bible, and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive.