[big black dog]

Evolution is science -- that is to say, a natural explanation for the natural world

Evolution precisely, is the theory that random mutations through natural selection will produce viable new types of creatures, an idea that has never been remotely demonstrated (look at what they've done to those fruit flies and all they've produced was some really effed up fruit flies).

But more important, how is it possible to falsify this theory. If you can't, then it doesn't meet the modern definition of science.

[MrB]

Adaptation is observable, and it’s built in to the original information that makes up the organism.
Adding new, viable, “better” information to the DNA information of an organism has not been observed.

[BroJoeK]

"Evolution precisely, is the theory that random mutations through natural selection will produce viable new types of creatures, an idea that has never been remotely demonstrated..."

Evolution precisely has two elements:

1. Descent with modification -- meaning offspring are not just carbon copies of their parents, but sometimes contain changes.

   Darwin himself did not know that these changes can result from random genetic mutations, he knew nothing about genes, much less DNA. He only knew that offspring are sometimes different from their parents.

2. Natural selection: meaning that those offspring with changes which better adapt them, helping them to survive and reproduce, can pass these changes on to their offspring.

   Darwin deduced "natural" selection based on his knowledge of human selection of domestic animals. Just as a farmer selects the best looking pig in a litter to breed, so nature "selects" those offspring best suited to survive.

That's it. That's precisely what the word "evolution" means.
Of course, from that many other ideas can be deduced (or debated), but the word "evolution" itself is a very simple and basic scientific theory which can be and has been often studied, observed, and never proved false.

As for the long, long-term emergence of, in your words, "viable new types of creatures", the word "type" is not a scientific category, and might be construed to mean almost anything.

• If by "type" we mean a race or breed that looks strikingly different from others it is closely related to, then we have many examples of that developed within the time-span of human history.

• If by "type" we mean a distinct species, defined as related breeds which are now so different they can no longer interbreed, then we have examples observed through experiment on the scale of single cell organisms.

  Examples in nature of related species just on the cusp -- so different they can interbreed, but the offspring are sterile -- include horses and mules, along with according to some researchers, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

But fossil records, and DNA analysis, show evolutionary time separating horses from mules, or Neanderthals from Cro-Magnon in the million-year plus range.
So clearly, in nature, such changes do not normally happen rapidly.
But nothing known to science prevents many small, incremental evolutionary changes from adding up, over many millions of years, to the development of new breeds, species, genera, families, orders, etc.

So, whether any of these scientific categories (i.e., breed, species, genera, etc.) corresponds to the biblical "kind" or your word "type" is really only a matter of interest, I'd suppose, within ID/Creationist circles.