I am a layperson in this field. Probably more well versed than the average bear, but definitely no expert.
I am also a Christian, which tilts me toward liking this theory. However, I don't feel that that is disqualifying as some people would have it. I remember seeing a television show which said that Nobel prize winners went into laboratories seeking to find proof of their theory, rather than simply letting the data speak for itself.
I rather suspect that this is necessary. We don't simply reason from data. At least I don't.
On the opposite side, we can't be like the people who find a theory, and then stick to it no matter what, and still call it science. Paul Johnson, in the beginning of his awe-inspiring history, Modern Times, talked of the difference between Freud and Einstein. Freud could twist his theory to whatever new facts came out, but Einstein supposedly said that if these specific things don't happen, then his theory was wrong.
Now throat-clearing aside, let me get to my question. I've recently read another book, by another Johnson, Phillip Johnson, supposedly the father of ID, and he alleged that most evolutionists of note such as Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Dawson started from an a priori assumption of a materialist universe. That is, they said "If the universe is purely material, then how could all life have arrived?" And Johnson admitted that if that was the correct question, then indeed, they had arrived at roughly the right answer despite what he felt was an awesome lack of proof.
If this a priori assumption-izing is true, then it is pretty destructive of the credentials of the pro-evolutionary side, or at least of those who hold such a view. And that is my question. Is this a fair assessment of the worldview of Gould and Dawson and the typical evolutionist who we assume follows them?