Within science there are not two "opposing points of view" to debate. Rather there is science, which relies of evidence and theory, and the ability to make accurate predictions.
Still waiting for one of you evols to tell me how any prediction - accurate or otherwise - can be made from a "science" that says "things change".
Good question. The answer is that not all predictions are forward-looking. If you find a critter like, say, Australopithecus afarensis, and a much later critter like, say, Homo ergaster you can predict where intermediate critters might be found and what their characteristics might be.
The theory of evolution, and most other historical sciences, are becoming increasingly accurate at this type of prediction.
(Intelligent design, on the other hand, makes no testable predictions that I know about, forward or otherwise.)
Intelligent Design predicts that not all advances in species will be gradual; that some advances will be sudden (e.g. an irreducibly complex jump from the closest species).
An example of such a jump is the oft-mentioned pig that manufactures human growth hormone.
Pause...
In contrast, Evolutionary Theory suffers not from a lack of predictions, but from a dearth of falsifiability criteria.
For instance, how do *you* posit that Evolution can be falsified?
"The theory of evolution, and most other historical sciences, are becoming increasingly accurate at this type of prediction."
Also called "retrodiction". Sorry. Not buying it.