SAB's letter entitled Scientific theories are beyond reasonable doubt is referred.

While many scientific theories are beyond reasonable doubt, Darwinism certainly isn't. I concede that the mainstream today tends toward naturalism but doubts still abound within the scientific community.

One viable challenger to Darwinism is intelligent design, using the notion of "specified complexity" and that certain biological systems, such as the bacterial flagellum, are evidently irreducibly complex and the best way to explain these is to attribute them to design, and not natural laws and chance.

While intelligent design presupposes a disembodied designer, it does not, for it to be a true scientific enterprise, speculate about the designer. Furthermore, a designer need not be a creator, specifically a Creator-God. Whether one will, assuming intelligent design is upheld, ascribe the designing work to the Judeo-Christian-Islam God is more theological than scientific.

Hardcore Darwinists, and I suppose there are many here, should look into researches done by design theorists such as William Dembski honestly and see whether there can be no alternatives to naturalism as far as the origin of life is concerned.

Until the day evolutionists can "account for the emergence of irreducibly complex biological systems", paraphrasing Dembski, I remain doubtful of the theory. Evidences please, not merely creative, wishful thinking and promise of better luck in digging fossils in the future.