Intelligent Design

Evidently Hugh Hewitt is defending Intelligent Design (ID) as a legitimate scientific theory. As opposed to Darwin and evolution.

Rand Simberg says a scientific theory needs to be falsifiable. So what should we look for in evolution theory to show facts that it does not adequately explain?

Here is my answer:

A good way to disprove evolution would be if DNA evidence did not correspond to the evolutionary model: accretion of complexity.

So far DNA supports evolution.

--==--

What one might look for directly are human remains (or others) from a time period in which evolution says they ought not exist.

Of course since the intelligent designer can do anything one might counter argue that the designer took his time. And did stuff sequentially. From the simplest to the most complicated. However, since evolution also is supposed to work that way you are left with a choice: a natural explanation (evolution) or a supernatural one (intelligent design).

Which one would science prefer?