Evolutionists argue that Design is only "Apparent"

The teaching of evolution today is that nature’s design is all an illusion that stems from a purposeless process driven by a “Natural Selector” (Hanke, 2004).

This is truly doublespeak that is not worthy of Science. It is an evasive maneuver to say that the purpose of an eagle’s wing cannot be known and that the synchronized movement of all its precisely fitted parts is only an “illusion of design”. How much better would scientists be if they were set free to allow design when they see design? Their research is held hostage by the philosophy of "Naturalism", which declares that any talk of intelligent design is out of bounds for scientists to speak of. Naturalism itself is an unscientific premise!
 
How can we bring mainstream scientists to see that Naturalism is standing in the way of truth? Dr. Randy Guliuzza, in his article Evaluating Real vs. Apparent Design, offers advise on how to engage with evolutionists on this issue:

In a conversation about the best explanation for the origin of nature’s design, first expose the weakness of the assertion that design is “only an illusion.” Recount how evolutionists rely on a mindless iterative process to accumulate genetic mistakes “favored” by totally imaginary forces from their stand-in god, natural selection. The impotence of this mechanism always forces them to make conclusions far exceeding what the data support. Consequently, they resort to “counter-intuitive” scenarios that are “mystifying to the uninitiated,” full of infinite numbers of self-creating universes where microscopic biological machines “self assemble” by “co-opting” “off the shelf parts,” leading to creatures with “ghost lineages” that magically “arise” or “burst onto the scene.” So even if the evolutionist doesn’t ask “can you offer something better?”…do it anyway.

Creationists can show that nature’s design has features associated with those known only to be derived from real designers. Support is based on actual observations of living things’ intricately arranged parts, plans and specifications reflected in DNA’s information, and many examples of all-or-nothing unity. This truth frees researchers to expect that nature is a product of a rational, coherent design, a path that will lead to research that is once again open to fresh insights into nature. In biology, discovering purposes is better than forcing the absurdity that purpose is unknowable. Real design is the better scientific explanation, and free minds are better than imprisoned minds.

(For the entire article, see Evaluating Real vs. Apparent Design by Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D., Acts & Facts, Institute for Creation Research, January 2011.)

References (selected)

Hanke, D. 2004. Teleology: The explanation that bedevils biology. In Explanations: Styles of explanation in science. Cornwell, J., ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 143-155.