[ckilmer]

Yes; the argument is being made, but it's not a scientific one, remember the original quote was that "bilogists" had found evidence of complexity that suggested intelligent design, because scientific arguments can be disproven through testing and observation with rigorous application of scientific method. The intelligent design theory does not fit into this standard.
///////////////////////////
true but in order to make this clear you have to also make clear that evolution does not prove by means of the scientic method--that a.)natural selection is random b.)there is no God.

further you have to mention that in greek terms say, the scientific method has been designed for aristotles creatures and not plato's creator.

[StJacques]

". . . in order to make this clear you have to also make clear that evolution does not prove by means of the scientic method . . . "

I must respectfully disagree. First of all the use of the word "prove" is not in line with the way scientists approach any theory, because the ultimate goal of scientific observation is to eliminate alternative explanations through an inductive method. "Support" is really the term that applies. And evolutionary theory uses a body of observable evidence to support its hypotheses; including geologic stratigraphy, the fossil record, microbiology, taxonomy, field study, laboratory experiments that include observed instances of speciation, and more.

And on the issue of random mutations, that is a problem in evolutionary theory that has been called into question in a significant manner by evolutionary theorists themselves. Natural selection of random mutations seems to be insufficient as a singular explanation of evolutionary change, but that does not negate the overall theory, though it may force its revision to a form that is distinctly different from that which Darwin first proposed.