Look at car - Assume hows its made by analogy and comparative thinking.
Look at car - Actually study how it was made by analysis and repeated successful experimentation.
It's not a different way of interpreting evidence. It is wishful thinking.
For something that we do know the answer for, it is wishful thinking.
Example: Pot of boiling water. We know why it boils - heat transfers to the water molecules which gives them more kinetic energy which allows them to move farther from each other. This can be shown by
experiment and it can be
observed. To say, "Ah, perhaps God is separating the molecules Himself" is indeed wishful thinking.
HOWEVER, for something that we DO NOT know the answer for (like, for example, the emergence of DNA), there are:
1. No evolution experiments which can show how it was made (in fact, experimental evolution isn't a really big field itself)
2. No way to study how it was actually made - all is speculation, simply due to the factor of time
All we're left with is to infer (not wishful thinking). If all other functional codes (with their own encrypting/decrypting system) that we know of are created by an intelligent mind (Morse code, binary, C++, etc.) then it's not unreasonable for us to assume that perhaps DNA (which is a code - argue it's just chemicals, but then I'll argue that binary is just electricity passing through gates and switches) was created by an intelligent mind. Tell me it's designed poorly because of junk DNA (oh, and junk DNA isn't really junk -
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/), but this is irrelevant (I'm not saying a perfect God created it, I'm saying it was designed by an intelligent being, and not random chance).
It's like this - assume I have a box with a duck inside of it. If all other ducks outside the box are white, then it's not unreasonable for me to assume that the duck inside the box is white as well. However, if you find one duck outside of the box which is black, then doubts are raised.
Note that I'm not saying anything 100% conclusive, and I'm not even talking about God. However, evolution doesn't provide any good answers for the creation of DNA. Want me to wait on science to find the answer? I will - but I'm going to need a little faith for that.
P.S. Some theories in evolution are based on inference as well - micro-evolution can be demonstrated experimentally, and because of this, evolutionists believe that macro-evolution is 100% possible based on inference only (there are no experiments demonstrating macro-evolution on a large scale - all we hear is the cop-out that "there is not enough time").
Then comes the interpretation of fossil structures as "evidence". But note - we do not have experimental evidence of macro-evolution (the one and only one experiment that evolutionists will refer to is this -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html, but this isn't even close to showing a new species being made in the lab, just a new, self-harming trait). So in the end, evolutionists themselves are using "analogy and comparative thinking" to expand upon theories for evolution - something you'd call "wishful thinking". It is, however, just an inference, much like the example I gave above.
Also, lots of scientific theories are based on comparative thinking, especially those in the field of astronomy -
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e1. "Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison." It doesn't mean it's "wishful thinking".
Excuse the long post - I just want people to understand my stance properly.
