God of Gaps is one of God's holy names

[Sheldon]

There is evidence everywhere for design in the complex systems of microbiology for instance.

No there isn't, complexity does not evidence design.

 

[Sheldon]

Evolution for instance has no successful test nor any way of proving a successful test of how life began.

Neither does gravity, or relativity or any other accepted scientific theory, so what? Evolution explains and evidences the origins of species, not life.

 

[setarcos]

Darwin originally predicted that all species are connected in a single phylogeny, viewable as a phylogenetic tree. Darwin considered this so important that the only illustration to ever appear in Origin of Species is a figure of a phylogenetic tree. When Darwin published his work, perhaps 100,000 species were known. Today, the number is something like 2,000,000 or more. And in 100% of the cases, Darwin's prediction has been corroborated - so, at least 1,900,000 tests of one of his fundamental predictions, with 100% corroboration. I think this makes Darwinism one of the most tested scientific theories in history.

Good day to you sir.
I don't think Darwin's tree is quite as solid as you indicate. It seems to me that it is still debatable.
For instance take a gander at these quotes...

"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.
I don't think he got to be where he got to be at University by being ignorant in his field of study.
And another.....
"The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
Sure sounds like this University guy must be a moron right?

Darwin's prediction has been corroborated - so, at least 1,900,000 tests of one of his fundamental predictions, with 100% corroboration.

So where are you getting this 100% corroboration? Fitting ones observations into a theory that one thinks explains a phenomena is not 100% corroboration of that theories truth. Especially if it is being contested with alternative explanations which may explain the phenomena as well.
How about this from Quanta Magazine...
"Researchers build the world's largest evolutionary tree and conclude that species arise because of chance mutations - not natural selection."
Hmmm...seems the debates rage on.
Keep in mind there is nothing inherently exclusionary to the intelligent design theory in the proposed methods of species change. The differences lay in the originator source not the methods themselves.

 

[setarcos]

No there isn't, complexity does not evidence design.

Well I guess I should have asked first, how you define designed?
Scientifically design has to do with inherent information. More specifically "complexity and specificity". In other words the higher the information content within a system the higher the probability that system was purposefully designed. Take a car for instance. Vehicles show high information content. They are complex machines with high specificity to the functioning of their parts. The probability of a recognizable and functioning car, as vehicles are defined, being produced strictly by random process is astronomically low. Hence the astronomically high probability of it being purposefully designed. That is how science evidences design. That is how science "SETI" looks for evidence of "alien" activity as it peers at other planetary systems or analyses signals.
Now look at biology. There is evidence of very high "information content" in biological systems.

Stephen C. Meyer notes, “in all cases where we know the causal origin of ‘high information content,’ experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.”
And as I have noted before....
Even atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins concedes that “iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
So...the evidence for at least the appearance of design is there. The disagreement is in its origins.

 

[setarcos]

Neither does gravity, or relativity or any other accepted scientific theory, so what? Evolution explains and evidences the origins of species, not life.

Um....gravity can be tested by you throwing something off a building and analysis the results.
Relativity was tested by Eddington by observations he made of the May 29th 1919 solar eclipse. Einstein's theory has been tested many times since then and has thus far held up pretty good.
And so on....
Evolution attempts to explain the origin of species by confining its analysis within a specifically natural framework. In other words it specifically excludes the possibility of design simply because it would not be within its framework. Even though, as I've shown...there is evidence of design. If I jumped up and said I created this particular species and here's how I did it. Evolutionists would still be able to fit that species into their natural framework without me. So they would still question my statements.