"Alternatives" to Evolution

It has often been said that "alternative" theories to evolution are ignored because of a preconceived bias in favor of evolution over all others. To anyone who understands what science is and how science works, this is complete hogwash. But, in the interests of fairness, let's present the premise of the alternative theories, the evidenciary support and the viability of each one.

Evolution: Based upon the idea that life's diversity can be explained as the result of millions of years of gradual change. These changes were brought about through random processes like mutation and genetic drift, and deterministic processes like adaptation and selection.

Evidence: The evidence for evolution is mountainous, but a portion of it can be found
here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_01

Here:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/index.html

Here:

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/

And Here:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Intelligent Design: Based upon the idea that an intelligent entity or force is responsible for not only the diversity of life on earth, but it's origin as well (something evolution doesn't do). This entity supposedly created life, the universe and everything either through an intricate network of guided interconnected natural processes, or through magic, sorcery or other supernatural phenomena. I looked for evidence that would give us some insight into who, what, or where this intelligent entity is or was, but I couldn't find any. Most of what I did find was criticisms of evolution, the most popular one being "it's just a theory" which only shows the gross lack of understanding about what constitutes a "scientific theory." I also found full-scale denials that evidence for evolution even existed. I found this curious, because I was able to find evidence for evolution rather quickly...see above. I also found a lot of repetition of the phrase "it (life) couldn't have happened purely by chance," which evolution does not teach. There is, however, no evidence in any reputable scientific journal which gives credence to the existence of an outside extra-terrestrial entity or force that "created" life. All there is to it is the idea that "somebody" or" something" from "somewhere else" did "something" and "ka-blammo!" here we are. This explains everything, but enlightens nothing.

Creationism: Based on the idea that a god or gods created life, the universe and everything either through an intricate network of guided interconnected natural processes, or through magic, sorcery or other supernatural phenomena. With this idea, you run into two problems. First of all, if a god or gods were observable, measurable, testable, and potentially falsifiable, they wouldn't be gods as they would lack the supernatural characteristics that gods allegedly have. Second, the existence of supernatural phenomena and entities lies outside the realm of scientific study, which is the study of the natural and discernible.....in other words, that which is observable, measurable, testable, and potentially falsifiable, The evidence for creationism is provided by the myriad of holy books, sacred scrolls and mystic stories of the various cultures of the world. Since none of these are supported by anything resembling scientific evidence and since all rely on supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, it is safe to conclude that it is useless to discuss creationism within the context of science, or as a viable scientific theory.

Biblical Creationism: Based on the idea that a specific god (Yahweh/Jehovah of the Judeo-Christian Bible) created life, the universe and everything according to the literal interpretation of the story laid out in Genesis, the first book of said bible. According to Genesis, the Earth and everything in and around it was created by the god Yahweh/Jehovah in six days. Everything on earth was apparently intended to live forever but a talking snake convinced the first man and woman to eat forbidden fruit, which caused all the death in the world. While there may be great moral lessons in Genesis, there are clearly no scientific ones. Like creationism in general, this is not a viable scientific theory and has no place within the context of serious scientific discussion or study.

So, there you have it. Evolution describes a natural, discernible process that has a mountain of evidence to support it. The evidence is observable, testable and measurable, making the theory potentially falsifiable. The others describe supernatural or otherwise unfalsifiable processes involving beings or forces than cannot be tested, observed or measured. You can believe in alien overlords and talking snakes all you want, but until you can provide evidence, you have a supposition, a guess, a hope or a great screenplay, but you do not have a scientific theory.