Program nesting.
With a computer program as corrections and additions are made, any part that is addressed directly has to have its address changed if that part of the program is shifted, but if it is addressed by relative addressing the whole routine can be shifted and its addresses remain correct, but if routines or information it refers to have moved differently there has to be some address changes.

This can account for many differences in the DNA and so-called "junk" DNA, which are now called UnTranslated Regions, when comparing similar DNA from similar or even dis-similar species in an attempt to establish when they "diverged" in the now defunct evolutionary theory. All research to estimate when one species diverged from another based on differences in similar "junk", now UTR, is rubbished. It has been a waste of time, as it is actually based on essential program changes, due to essential differences between the species, not mutations, but the different way the program has nested due to data changes about features, or chemistry because of different foods or habitat. Also because tissue types are different proteins or amino acids or other chemistry may be changed so it will work better or more safely. Dogs eat all sorts of filthy rubbish so they must have a much stronger intestinal chemistry than I have, otherwise they would be continually sick, so their intestinal lining is probably made stronger, so I would expect similarities, but some differences in that section of the DNA, between species, by design, not mutation.

Fitting the data into a theory.
The ENCODE scientists are doing science research correctly, but will only interpret the information they discover in terms of evolution, it must support their a priori assumptions. They cannot suggest that it indicates or supports either ID or Creation because they will probably lose their job as often happens.
ID proponents and creationists use the same research of others and do their own, but they have the academic freedom to speak openly about where the research seems to lead, and what it proves.

In the USA a number of states have passed, or are proposing to pass laws to protect people who have different views. This is mainly because the scientific evidence against evolution is becoming so obvious that many good scientists are being harassed, forced out of their jobs, or sidelined, because they have let it be known they have some doubts about evolution, even though they may be highly competent at their profession.

After years of evolutionary teaching many influential people believe it has been proved, but it is now clear that it cannot explain the start of life or the complex information required for any life forms. In order to protect what they have been told is true evolutionists carry out hate and ridicule campaigns against any criticism of evolution, often claiming it is unscientific, or religious, but ignoring the fact that the dispute is based on solid scientific ground, much of which is research done by evolutionists, who can't see the wood for the trees.

It is not about creationism or religion.
That’s a red herring from desperate Darwinists. The bill is about allowing teachers to present scientific evidence that supports Darwin’s theory, as well as some that challenges it. If you cannot see problems with the evolution theory, then how will you know what area of research you should do to confirm the theory?
Students need to learn how to evaluate competing scientific data, they need to have access to various views of interpretation of the data, to develop skills in scientific logic, not to learn by rote as if it is a times table that cannot be varied, that only evolution can be accepted as true.
Properly researching ID and creationist claims may provide proof that they are wrong, but if you are found to be researching their claims, you are liable to be sacked, hence the lack of clear scientific evidence.

Not only the above problem, but lots more.
This is just a short view out of a seven page article. Out of other articles comes another impossible problem for evolution, how to make an acid driven motor to produce the essential cells energy, ATP, before having the instructions and the reading mechanism, on how to get the manufacturing instructions out of the DNA, for making the motor, which you cannot make unless you have the ATP, which is the energy used inside every living cell, that the motor has to produce for you. Catch 22. You have to have the design and mechanical ability and the fuel to make the motor before you have the motor that you must have to produce the fuel to operate the reading and manufacturing system. The very first cell must have this, as nothing lives without the ATP motor, absolutely pure chemistry is essential, no rubbishy natural chemicals out of the wild, dirty, natural environment.

So, in the evolutionary view, the first living cell had to hit upon the DNA/RNA and the reading mechanism, copying system, reproduction program and system, nutritional system, waste system, and also an ATPase motor capable of 10,000 RPM set up and running, before any work can be done, as the ATP is needed to power every work, even a tiny little bit of work, including reading the DNA. Also kinesins to transport materials are essential. Each of these is impossible for evolutionary processes because life has to have pure materials, amino acids and sugars come in both left and right-handed versions, but only the correct handed version can be used, and these are assembled one molecule at a time, but in the natural world everything is mixed and nothing is pure enough for life, you have to eat a variety so as to process and get the nutrients’ which your internal organs can then purify and use.
Taking each one of the above problems individually, what chance is there that impure unguided chemicals could hit upon such a successful arrangement, and then what chance of two of them occurring together, or all of them at the same time? None whatever. Saying that "we are here so it must have happened" is just a stupid way of avoiding considering the problem. The minimum complexity for the simplest possible life form is still horrendously complex. The whole purpose of your life depends on the answer, with evolution you cannot have a purpose, but if it wasn't evolution then there is a purpose and you need to find it, and the one who gives life and purpose.

Irreducible structures.
In his article Life's irreducible structures - Part 1:
"autopoiesis", Alex Williams takes the line that: "all aspects of life point to intelligent design, based on what European polymath Professor Michael Polanyi FRS, in his 1968 article in Science called "Life's irreducible Structure"¹ Polanyi argued that living organisms have a machine-like structure that cannot be explained by (or reduced to) the physics and chemistry of the molecules of which they consist. This concept is simpler, and broader in its application, than Behe's concept of irreducible complexity, and it applies to all of life, not just some of it."

Polanyi also said " The recognition or certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundation of some of the major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction." ²

Why we don't see the designer.
Doberman bred dogs to get the attributes he wanted, The intelligence, planning, and manipulating of the breeding program was outside of the dogs realm, even though the dogs would have known Doberman, none of the dogs could be raised to the intelligence level needed to question him as to why he was doing this, nor understand what was being done. Similarly our creation was imposed on us by a higher intelligent manipulating entity, and we cannot attain the necessary ability to see, understand and question that entity in its realm. But God has given us written communication, and can communicate at our level as he sees fit, but we can't communicate at his level of intelligence, but we can ask Him for guidance.

Evolution Academic Freedom Bills Sweeping the Nation.
Michigan become the fifth state to introduce an academic freedom bill to protect teachers who want to teach critical analysis of controversial subjects such as evolution.

"Educators should have the freedom to bring in the best scientific information to facilitate those discussions," said Michigan Representative John Moolenaar, the bill’s sponsor. "We’re trying to get students to ask the question: What scientific evidence exists for what theories?"

"I do not expect teachers to go into the classrooms and present a bizarre array of theories," said Florida Representative Alan Hays. "The theory of evolution, which most practicing biologists are teaching today, is inadequate in explaining our existence in the eyes of some scientists. Teachers need to be able to bring their students up to date."