Kubo wrote:

Is evolution empirically testable?

Yes. Just as with any scientific theory, the theory of evolution generates predictions which are empirically testable. Should just one of these predictions turn out to be incorrect, the theory would be falsified and scientist would either have to abandon it or modify it.

I could give you examples of how empirically testable predictions of the theory of evolution have turned out to be correct, but instead let me just give you this short video with one such example. It's from a talk by Ken Miller, a believing Catholic and one of the most well respected biologists in the field; he can explain it a lot better than an interested layman like myself ever could:

Kubo wrote:

If it IS empirically testable, then doesn't it just discount stories in the Bible, and not God per se?

Correct. No scientific theory or empirical data can ever prove or disprove the existence of God. God's existence, unlike evolution, is not falsifiable and therefore completely out of reach of empirical science.

Cattivo wrote:

As for Evolution, it's a great theory, but its study has rarely if ever found fossils demonstrating the all important "transitional states" for animals as they test possible improvements and discard those that don't work.

There are countless transitional fossils. I suggest you visit a museum of natural history near you. They are bound to have at least a few transitional fossils laying around and the guides are usually happy to answer any questions you have. They will tell you that the discovery of transitional fossils is in no way a "rare" event, but happens pretty frequently. Usually, after scientists have determined where and when the transition happened, they can go there, dig for the fossils and often find at least one if not more. In fact just last week a transitional turtle was found in China, named Odontochelys, that shed new light on the question of how the turtle's shell evolved. If you follow current scientific discoveries, either through blogs, newsletters or science magazines, you see stuff like this all the time.

But don't take my word for it. Here's Ken Miller again, this time on the matter of transitional fossils:

Cattivo wrote:

Moreover, it doesn't explain the Cambrian explosion, where the ancestors of all of today's animals suddenly appeared on the earth with no antecedents.

There are several possible explanations as to why the fossil records suddenly exploded. For example an increase of atmospheric oxygen could have allowed life to thrive. The end of the pre-Cambrian ice age could likewise have led to a more favorable environment. The best explanation however is probably that pre-Cambrian life forms hadn't evolved the hard parts necessary for efficient fossilization yet, which explains a) why there are so many fossils all of a sudden and b) why there are no morphological antecedents for these fossils (there is evidence for multi-cellular life before the Cambrian explosion, there are just no morphological antecedents for later forms among them - yet.)

There are still many unanswered questions about the Cambrian Explosion and we can all look forward to many more discoveries. But to say that the Cambrian Explosion cannot be explained is certainly premature at this point and in the end probably not true.

Cattivo wrote:

In fact, as science advances, they notice all the coincidences that make life possible, and it leads more and more to the idea of a "central planner" or "architect."

Not only life, but life, the universe and everything is made possible by these coincidences. For example if there hadn't been just a little more matter than anti-matter after the Big Bang, the universe as it is today wouldn't exist. And we have absolutely no idea what the cause for the matter/anti-matter asymmetry in the early universe was. But that certainly doesn't mean that science suggests or even proves that God exists. The concept of God is completely uninteresting to science (but not necessarily to scientists), precisely because science cannot make any verifiable or falsifiable statements about God. Unless you can present me with an empirical test for God, the claim that science gives so much as even a hint about the existence or in-existence of God is completely unfounded. You are welcome to attribute the beauty and the countless marvels of the universe to an outside creator, but don't suggest that science supports or hinders you in any of this. It doesn't.

Finally if I was a religious person I would be extremely cautious about basing or even just peripherally justifying my beliefs with current scientific knowledge. People have made the mistake of making their religious beliefs too dependent on empirical facts in the past. And science has a habit of changing. What may look like good evidence for God today may not be there tomorrow.

Cattivo wrote:

I certainly don't believe it's incontrovertible proof, I'm only suggesting it's something interesting to think about. Please read the entire article. The mere chance of all the suitable conditions we have could be as astronomically small as one in a billion. When we are lucky enough to hit that jackpot, the thought of a "central planner" naturally comes to mind. It may be more "philosophical" than "scientific", but not all thoughts can fit the scientific method.

As long as we're clear that we're entirely in the realm of philosophy when discussing this, I don't have a fundamental problem with the argument even though I disagree. The fundamental problem I have is when the argument is used to somehow suggest that there is a scientific basis for metaphysical beliefs of any kind. And make no mistake about it, that's the reason this argument has become so en vogue in the last ten years or so. Both Atheists and religious people like to pretend that their beliefs are supported by science, because that would make their respective claims seemingly irrefutable. But if you look closely at what the article says, it is nothing but the centuries old teleological argument for the existence of God - a philosophical argument in scientific drag. Thus the same philosophical objections that have been brought forward against the teleological argument also apply for this incarnation. Those objections have been rejected, modified, rejected again, modified again etc. Decide for yourself in that matter. The point I'm getting at is that this has nothing to do with evolution or science.