Until we have observers capable of living millions and billions of years, evolution will remain as unprovable.
Not quite true, as evolution in response to environmental stimuli and changing conditions can and has been proven in the lab with short-lifespan fast-generation organisms, from bacteria to fruit flies. There's also empirical evidence such as the moths that changed their camouflage colors during the Industrial Revolution to better blend in with soot-blackened environments. Those dark-colored moths were less likely to be seen and eaten, thus, survived longer to reproduce.
You're only talking about HUMAN and vertebrate evolution. On the latter, there is also a quite clear fossil record of the changes to species in response to changing environmental conditions, such as eohippi to the modern horse, or dire wolves to modern canines in all their environment-suited niche species. It can be observed in the very traits of such animals, from the large heat-radiator ears of desert animals to the tiny heat-conserving ears of arctic ones.
That argument's always been a bit of a red herring where the ID people try to disprove evolution. They also tend to ignore the australopithecine skeletons...especially the
unsuccessful ones that died out entirely, like Australopithecus Robustus, which seems to have been a large vegetarian that couldn't compete.
It is a largely mathmatical analysis of the likelyhood that, given X billion years, life got from virus and bacteria to us in that span of time.
No, it's more a fundamental failure on the part of its proponents to conceive of the vast spans of time involved in evolution of higher species. It's an intellectual inability to get one's mind around just how long a million years is, let alone billions.
And no, it doesn't "name" a creator, but it absolutely and completely implies that some intelligent being had to do it all, nudge nudge wink wink. Just TRY to suggest to an ID proponent that "Well, it could have been....alllliens...", and you'll be smacked down with their true colors of blatant religiousity.
Darwin, you see, started with observations of creatures, took notes and drawings, and, over time, formulated a theory as to HOW such things could have resulted. ID is the complete opposite, starting with a blind belief and trying to find pseudoscientific reasons that could possibly fit it.
It is the philosophical equivalent of Swift's Laputan builders, dangling an unsupported roof and trying to build a house to fit under it, whereas the theory of evolution started with the foundation, empirical evidence, and built upward from there.
