[GourmetDan]

"Natural selection initially favored lighter colored tree moths, but when the environment changed, natural selection began to favor darker colored tree months. Observation – something that intelligent design can not do."

Actually, ID can observe those changes just as easily as the naturalists. Let's not pretend that the difference is in the observations, shall we?

"The second population should be affected more so than the first. Testing – again, something that intelligent design can not do."

Actually, ID can test those changes just as easily as the naturalists. Let's not pretend that the difference is in the testing, shall we?

"I hate how certain American liberals like to play word games when they defend affirmative action as not being discrimination. Likewise, I hate how certain American conservatives like to play the exact same word games when they claim that intelligent design is scientific."

Likewise, I hate how naturalists like to play the exact same word games when they claim that evolution is scientific.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

You are correct. Intelligent design advocates can observe the changes in the moth populations just like real scientists. They can also come up with the same conclusion – microevolution occurred. Intelligent design advocates can test the changes in the moth populations just like real scientists. They can also come up with the same conclusion – microevolution by natural selection occurred. I type corrected.

Likewise, I hate how naturalists like to play the exact same word games when they claim that evolution is scientific.

But, evolution is scientific. It conforms to the scientific method and has a large body of reproducible experiments and peer-reviewed papers.

I direct you to the ruling of Judge Jones, as follows:

What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.