Things are scientific or they aren't. There is no sliding scale of "more scientific" or "less scientific". [Intelligent Design] ID is not scientific. Evolutionary biology is scientific. It is also not called "Darwinian Evolution" except by creationist godwhacks like Mark. Darwin was undeniably the father of the science of evolutionary biology, but his theory is not the only theory out there and it's about 150 years out of date. Another thing; Only creationists say things like "unproven theory". Read this very carefully Mark: No theory can EVER be "proved" or "disproved". Proof only exists is mathematics because we create and know every, single part of the "universe" that our mathematics systems exist within. Because we do not know every part of our own physical universe, we cannot "prove" anything. What we can do, however, is support a theory with enough evidence so that it can be considered to be true.
-Brent Rasmussen

When Darwin's skeptics attack his theory of evolution, they often focus on the eye. Darwin himself confessed that it was "absurd" to propose that the human eye, an "organ of extreme perfection and complication" evolved through spontaneous mutation and natural selection. But he also reasoned that "if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist" then this difficulty should be overcome. Scientists at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory [EMBL] have now tackled Darwin's major challenge in an evolutionary study published this week in the journal Science. They have elucidated the evolutionary origin of the human eye.
The mystery of eye evolution

The origins of biological complexity have been debated since antiquity. For a long time it was assumed that the magnitude of the complexity was so great that it could never have arisen from any ordinary natural process, and therefore must have been inserted from outside through some kind of divine plan. However, with the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 it became clear that there were natural processes that could in fact shape features of biological organisms.
   - Stephen Wolfram.

"The very simplest rules will just give simple behavior... But what the Principle of Computational Equivalence says is that if one looks at just a few more rules, one will suddenly cross a threshold - and end up with maximal computational sophistication."
  - Stephen Wolfram.

One of the most famous arguments of the creationist theory of the universe is the eighteenth-century theologian William Paley's: Just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into existence by accident, so too must all living things, with their far greater complexity, be purposefully designed. But as Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology at Oxford University, demonstrates in this brilliant and eloquent riposte to the Argument from Design, the analogy is false. Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
The Blind Watchmater by Richard Dawkins

“The Scouring of the Shire” near the end of J. R. R. Tolkien’s "The Lord of the Rings" is a "shabby bit of evil".

"We are accustomed to thinking of ourselves as peaks of perfection, and the arrangements of more "primitive" creatures as similar to our own, only cruder. It's a nice idea. Until along comes the sea lamprey to challenge our preconceptions." - The Tyranny of Design (Nature Magazine - subscription now required).

"... I want to suggest that Darwinism-in which I include its DNA-inspired mutation, neo-Darwinism-has contributed to this will to ugliness not merely by underwriting a vision of the world as a godless accident, but also in the very way it critiques and thereby dismisses the idea of an Author and Designer of life."
- The Gods Must Be Tidy