Quote:
I wasn't aware that it was reproducible or observed.

As opposed to "I.D." which is reproducible and observed, making it science, right?

When a forensic expert observes a dead body, with entry and exit wound consistent with a bullet embedded into a wall behind the corpse, she concludes that the victim has been shot. No alternative theories (including those of divine intervention) are generally being postulated, despite the fact that nobody actually witnessed the shooting*. Similarly, fosill record is hard evidence, although nobody spent four billion years dilligently taking notes of each and every mutation and its effect.

However, evolution is being directly observed. Ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria? What do you think, how and why did they acquire those traits?

Evolution is hard science. Those blathering "even scientists admit it's theory, not fact" show they don't know (or, more probably, pretend not to know) that scientists generally call any complex, consistent and predictive set of observations and descriptions of natural phenomena a theory. For example, there is hardly any more rock solid and tested to death piece of modern physics than special relativity; yet, it is called theory.

"Intelligent Design" in its more primitive, Bible-literalist form is simply one of thousands creation myths, all believed in by certain number of people, some more beautiful than others, all arbitrary. It has its place in schools, in sociology, anthropology or literature classes. In its extremely "detached" (non-Biblical) form, which says that something or someone created our Universe (tuned the Big Bang, so to speak), i.e. where it touches "anthropic principle", it is (at least for now) firmly outside the scope of science. Its truth being undecidable, it is no more than a nice and harmless topic for idle speculation.

Incidentally, science is not being dilligently undermined only from right-wing and religious quarters; there are numerous nominally left-wing "social theorists" trying to describe our world not in objective terms, not as result of divine creation either, but as a social construct. I think I already linked this site, but it is worth revisiting. Try to apply, for example, this example of stellar thinking to (successful) efforts to exterminate smallpox. Their tongue in cheek dictionary of fashionable nonsense.

*) Actually, Pete Seeger in this recording for Smithsonian thinks otherwise
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos Q#5196 MkII #080000376, 18GB green MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue