[Southack]

"If you want to argue within the realm of science, you need to bring scientific evidence."

Fair enough. Here's scientific evidence:

Now, which theory best explains how the above pig came to have the gene for producing Human Growth Hormone:
#1. Evolution or
#2. Intelligent Design

[b_sharp]

"Now, which theory best explains how the above pig came to have the gene for producing Human Growth Hormone:
#1. Evolution or
#2. Intelligent Design"

There you go again.
The pig does show that ID can produce changes to a genome. It does not show that all life is the result of ID. Showing that it is possible is not the same as showing that it is universally true.

[Coyoteman]

Now, which theory best explains how the above pig came to have the gene for producing Human Growth Hormone:
#1. Evolution or
#2. Intelligent Design

Ever heard of genetic engineering?

Evolution explains how the pig came to be a pig.

Intelligent design explains nothing. It is based on religious belief, and has no explanatory power in science. It is a dishonest attempt by the Discovery Institute to sneak creation "science" into science classes following the Supreme Court decision of the late 1980s that tossed it out.

(While we're on the subject, you want some lipstick for that pig?)

[LeGrande]

Now, which theory best explains how the above pig came to have the gene for producing Human Growth Hormone:
#1. Evolution or
#2. Intelligent Design

So I take it then that you would be willing to stipulate that John Baxter is the Intelligent Designer of the gene? If it wasn't him then who?

Assuming that you agree with John Baxter then I don't think we have a disagreement. We have evidence that that is the case and the gene sequencing from Genentech.

Now I have a tougher question, who designed the pig and what is your evidence to support your claim? It was your example so I am certain that you must have an adequate answer.