[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . gravity isn't false . . .

Gravity isn't an idea. Evolution is not gravity. If you have this much trouble getting comparisons right, then how much should I trust whatever rendition of world history you happen to believe?

As for the remainder of your screed, science has not demonstrated that intelligent design is unnatural (or supernatural). What is unnatural or unscientific about organized matter performing specific functions, which precisely defines the products of intelligent design?

[Dante Alighieri]

Neither is evolution. Evolutionary theory is the well-supported explanation for the diversity of life. It's not an idea either. Nice strawman you just concocted there. "As for the remainder of your screed, science has not demonstrated that intelligent design is unnatural (or supernatural). What is unnatural or unscientific about organized matter performing specific functions, which precisely defines the products of intelligent design?" It means non-natural when the proponents of ID claim and purport that non-natural intelligent agencies were behind it. The ID community has long admitted that ID is non-natural. There's nothing for science to demonstrate since the non-natural is not testable. Why do you think ID-proponents are pathetically attacking methodological naturalism?

[freedumb2003]

Gravity isn't an idea. Evolution is not gravity.

Fester, Fester, Fester. I *know* you have been told time and time again what a Scientific Theory is.

It is disingenuous for you to pretend you don't know what it is and why it is that the Theory of Evolution is a much more mature and filled-out theory than the Theory of Gravity.

Seeing something fall down is a DATUM in the TToG.