The physical capacity for a lion to overtake a human could just as easily be ascribed to intelligent design as it could be ascribed to some natural force made up from imaginary whole cloth. Natural selection is typically employed as a post facto explanation that could cover anything from a flip of the coin to virtually any reality. It does not belong in the realm of hard, empirical science, but in the realm of philosophical musings upon history.
The physical capacity for a lion to overtake a human could just as easily be ascribed to intelligent design
You're entirely missing the point. But then I've gotten used to that.
as it could be ascribed to some natural force made up from imaginary whole cloth.
Again, the point you missed: If you think that natural selection is "imaginary", try outrunning a hungry lion sometime.
Natural selection is typically employed as a post facto explanation that could cover anything from a flip of the coin to virtually any reality. It does not belong in the realm of hard, empirical science, but in the realm of philosophical musings upon history.
You clearly haven't a clue -- there have been *vast* numbers of studies which have established both a) the reality of the effect of natural selection on genetic evolution, and b) the fact that many genes in the genomes of humans and other species have been shaped by natural selection.
I'm getting pretty tired of endless waves of people who don't know the first thing about biology making arrogant but false pronouncements about the "lack" of research and evidentiary support for various tenets of evolutionary biology, when in fact that support has been meticulously and voluminously well-established, and the speaker's statement is based not on an actual lack of support, but only on his blissful ignorance of its existence. (I may have to make that into a keyboard hotkey.)
Now go waste someone else's time.