What does evolution predict? What will we look like in 10,000 years? How do you test it?
Evolution Theory is not science.
It predicts that the fossil record will appear to be changed over time. With "modern" creatures never found below "old" creatures.
If creationists could find a bona fide example where that fact does not hold true, then evolution would be swept aside. Yet out of millions of fossils found, over a 150 year time scale, no creationist has done so, despite several very well funded efforts.
Now, what does "intelligent design" predict? How can it be tested? What observations would falsify it in a manner I've described for evolution above?
From an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
Here's a good place to begin your literature search. Each section has a list of predictions, ie things that should be found in nature or the lab if ToE is true, and also lists of things which, if they were ever found, would show ToE to be false.
ID, of course has no such predictions or potential falsifications.
Biblical/Koranic creationism does make predictions, some of which are known to be false. EG, Noah's flood was disproved decades before Darwin, but the Bible never mentions the Ice Ages. Another example is the fifth day has the creation of fish and birds, and the sixth has land animals; this is the wrong order, land animals are found earlier than birds in the fossil record.