Here’s an excerpt from the Statement:
Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena. Scientists ask questions about the natural
world, formulate hypotheses to answer the questions, and collect evidence or data with which to evaluate the hypotheses.
Scientific theories are unified explanations of these phenomena supported by extensive testing and evidence. The theory
of evolution, supported by extensive scientific findings ranging from the fossil record to the molecular genetic relationships
among species, is a unifying concept of modern science. Of course, our understanding of how evolution works continues to
be refined by new discoveries.
But how do we tell that which is intelligently designed (by anyone or anything) apart from that which is produced by unintelligent natural processes? Is it just a matter of faith? In order to find a natural explanation for a natural phenomenon, we must first identify which phenomena are natural. (By “natural”, I mean as opposed to artificial rather than supernatural.) But how do we do that? The rule seems to be that if it’s possible for mankind to have made it, scientific design detection is applicable; but if not, we just presume that unintelligent causes did it–regardless of how probable or improbable the best unintelligent explanation may be. When it comes to biological phenomena, we just presume that neo-Darwinian mechanisms can explain them all because they are the only testable unintelligent mechanisms capable of producing such phenomena. Nevermind the fact that it looks uncannily as if it were the product of actual intelligent design. Nevermind the fact that a supernatural causal account is not necessary. Nevermind the fact that a detailed, testable, reasonably probable account of its formation is not forthcomming. We know unintelligent processes made it! Why? Because such an explanation is unfalsifiable; that’s why.
Go here to read the Statement in its entirety.