Biased Interpretation?

What did they see, though?Without knowing the totality of the evidence upon which they based their conclusion, I can only speculate as to the reasons for a change in position. I've come up with 3 possibilities, though.1. They had a bias towards ID. They believed in evolution before they looked at the evidence, based (most likely) on an appeal to the authority of scientists. Once they looked at the evidence for themselves, however, they no longer needed to take anyone's word as to what it indicated, as they could interpret it for themselves. Unfortunately, their bias colored their interpretation of the evidence.2. They started with the whole, broke it down to into its components; then forgot that they started with the whole, and were amazed that the components added up perfectly.
Example:"4074"Components:385, 56, 624, 82, 2005, 922"Why is the third number 624, and not 625 or 623? Wow, it sure looks like something specifically picked '624' so that it would total exactly 4074!"
Sorry, but you started with 4074. Saying that the components could add up to something different requires a world in which 4074 doesn't always have to equal 4074 -- where x can = not x.
We don't live in that world. However, if you forgot that what you were actually doing is subtracting from 4074, it can appear as though the components could have added up to a different total.3. They actually saw something that the mainstream theories cannot account for.As far as 3's go, I've only seen some rather iffy ones. They're sufficient to leave the door open to other possibilities, but that's about it.If you have 9999 weathervanes all pointing in one direction, and 1 pointing in another, I'm gonna go with the 9999 until I have a good explanation for such a systemic fault.

That's easy."Some powerful being planted the evidence."Evolution was framed!

Of course it works. The universe could have been created just this second, made to look 13.7 billion years old, with our memories of having lived for years being part of that creation. You can't use anything in the universe as evidence that this is false, as all the evidence in the universe has been faked.
Works perfectly. Accounts for everything.And adding an intelligence into the mix, giving it the goal of a specific result, and having it act to achieve that goal, always increases the probability of that result occurring.
Take the CT Lotto, for example. On March 8th, the numbers that came up were 17-22-26-35-38-40. The odds of those numbers coming up in any order is 1 in 7.1 million. However, if you add in an intelligence with the goal of having those numbers come up, and it acts to achieve that goal -- rigging the Lotto; that does vastly increase the probability that those numbers will come up.
However, the question is, should you be saying that the Lotto was rigged?