[Fester Chugabrew]

Evolutionists assume "random chance" was the causative event not because of the evidence, but because they assume a lack of a creator. Thus their belief system is influencing their science.

That is precisely what the controversy is all about.

Creationists assume "intelligent design" was the causative event because the evidence is visible even to the naked eye of a two-year-old. What is more, they do not necessarily import their belief system into science, but they operate with this knowledge in the background. They work within a GIVEN; they operate with intelligence and design in a universe chock full of intelligent design, for without a maker there can be no discoverer nor anything TO discover.

Without design and intelligence there would not even be consciousness, let alone materials to observe.

[ElizabethP]

Creationists assume "intelligent design" was the causative event because the evidence is visible even to the naked eye of a two-year-old.

What is the evidence outside of the the tendency of creationists to marvel at the world and simply tell themselves, "God must have done this."

for without a maker there can be no discoverer nor anything TO discover.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? This is belief rooted only in religious dogma.