In every case where a machine is observed and its origin can be determined it is the result of intelligent agency.
When observations have been repeated billions of times by billions of people like this without a single exception it is a law of nature, not hypothesis and not mere theory.
This is as well tested as the law of nature that the sun rises in the east. Of course it remains true that no one was around a billion years ago to witness the sun rising in the east but we assume it did until extraordinarily convincing evidence to the contrary is found.
Machines come from intelligent agency is a law of nature until extraordinarily convincing evidence to the contrary is found.
Biological machines have their origin in the distant past so no direct determination of their origin is possible. Until extraordinarily convincing evidence to the contrary is found the default assumption must be that their origin is intelligent agency.
This brings us to the question of whether random mutation plus natural selection is extraordinarily convincing evidence to the contrary. Given that descent with modification filtered by natural selection has had 150 years to convince the world, and it is still mired in controversy among laymen and experts alike, one is being quite reasonable, charitable in fact, in saying that it might not be extraordinarily convincing. Given that the natural selection theory now requires judicial fiat to protect it against criticism in public education it would appear to be, if anything, extraordinarily unconvincing.
The objection is raised that it is religious motivation which inspires criticism of evolution and that makes it unconstitutional. While the religious motivation may be true in a majority of evolution critics, it isn’t true that all critics are motivated by religion. Regardless, it is unconstitutional to deny participation in the political process due to religious beliefs which may influence the way a person votes. The freedom of religion clause in the first amendment prohibits such discrimination. The vote must actually be in support of something specifically establishing a religion, in support of something with no secular merit of any kind, and not merely a vote motivated by religious belief for anything at all.
Furthermore, in evaluating the establishment of religion that criticism of evolution is claimed to be, one needs to examine other scientific theories which dispute widely held religious beliefs to see if they also require protection from criticism by way of judicial fiat. The scientific theories below are taught in public schools, contradict widely held religious beliefs, and don’ t require judicial fiat to protect them:
The age of the universe is theorized to be about 14 billion years
The age of the earth is theorized to be about 4 billion years
Why aren’t school boards with their ostensible religious motivations voting to criticize these theories taught in physical science class like they’re voting to criticize natural selection taught in biology class? I assert it’s because these theories, unlike natural selection, are in fact supported by extraordinarily convicing evidence.