[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.

[GourmetDan]

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

No, evolution is not scientific. It departs from the scientific method when it assumes that observations can be extrapolated into unobserved events. Evolution does the very same thing that ID does, it just invokes naturalism instead of intelligent design. No difference.

"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."

Yeah, and OJ didn't do it because the jury said he didn't.