I'm not so sure this statement is accurate. Without a model, how would a scientist know what evidence supports it? The model directs the search for evidence.
As an example, consider cosmic inflation. Until recently the two generally accepted models were the Big Crunch and the cold dark universe. But a third possibility was recently proposed by Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth University called The Big Rip, in which the rate of inflationary acceleration increases until all matter explodes. What makes this theory scientific is the fact that the model makes specific predictions which can be tested.
From the article:
"Who knows if it is right or wrong," Caldwell said of his theory. "I think we'll find out pretty soon."
What specific, testable predictions do the proposed alternatives to evolution make? What should we expect to find if your theory is correct?
You're not permitted to notice a pattern at all until the hypothesis which would result from the pattern is so incredibly ironclad that even a creationist would consider it supported? What's unreasonable about that? </sarcasm>
Without a model, all that is left for the scientist to do is to wander around, willy-nilly, and gather data. "Science" in such a world would look something like the contents of my father's garage -- a bunch of stuff accumulated over the years, of value to no one. But with a model in mind (which must be consistent with the already-gathered evidence), the scientist knows what newly-discovered evidence means. It either supports the theory, or it contradicts the theory. Either way, there is meaning to the scientist's work.
Unfortunately putting on "evolutionary colored glasses" has been a requirement in our Universities, which limits the models available for grant monies.
Hopefully you will be willing to admit that if scientists said he needed a grant to prove that God designed DNA, they would be found with a sign reading "Scientists will work for food". And if the faculty and the students knew his position, they would spit on him as they passed by.
However the conservative wave overtaking our country is now beginning to change this dilemma in the households of America. However the universities are lagging well behind the mainstream. Expect many more scientists, as they become more numerous on campuses, to begin pursuing ID research.
ID scientists are not victums however, because we feel the evidence is still to incomplete to force it down anyones throat as fact.