Thoughts on evolution vs intelligent design

There are simply much more transitional fossil evidence for evolution now that I hardly understand the purpose of creationism and pseudo-science intelligent design. There is no doubt that macro-evolution existed and we should instead debate on the mechanism of which it functions. I realised that the reasons why believers rejected evolution are because 1) they do not have informed knowledge of what evolution really is and the correct definition of scientific terms which are used to define the mechanism. They just pick one evolution term and attack it senselessly and try to bring down the entire theory of evolution. 3) It is often easy to attack an idea which is based on observable evidence than attack idea that is based on faith. The latter has nothing for you to question about. What they did not understand is the fact that their idea of intelligent design, which they invented and called it scientific, is much harder to swallow for intelligent humans as it is rather a closed-ended ideology. Believing in it simply requires a leap of faith as it opens no room for questions.

I remember some opponent of evolution argue that the very fact that it's called THEORY of evolution makes it lack credibility. Clearly, they lack scientific knowledge. A theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them. In other words, it is an explanation to a set of observations. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. In short, they are explanation with laws and mechanism of how things works. In fact, Intelligent design uses the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They are trying to redefine science to include supernatural explantion that sort of pollute the very foundation of science as natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

"Intelligent design" consists of two hypothetical claims about the history of the universe and of life: first, that some structures or processes in nature are "irreducibly complex" and could not have originated through small changes over long periods of time; and second, that some structures or processes in nature are expressions of "complex specified information" that can only be the product of an intelligent agent. In fact, even though design theorists claimed that it is a scientific theory, it has yet to produce any credible results for scientific scrutiny.

So prove me wrong by coming out with concrete evidences of workings of higher beings instead of bombarding with words of mouth which often tends to be over exaggerated and requires significant leap of faith. It's easy to say things, but not easy to prove things. Science sought to address this problem. If the world works with simply words, there will be no advancement that we enjoy today. Till then, intelligent design does not warrant my interest.

For more read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/index.php