When it comes to understanding issues like evolution vs. intelligent design, or understanding where evolution could go, I think it's important to start with a few basics + clear up some misconceptions:
First, evolution ≠ progress or advancement
This might seem counter-intuitive at first, but using evolution to explain the origin of complex species does not mean that evolution is the same as ever-increasing complexity, intelligence, and so on. Instead, evolution is simply the idea that species more likely to survive and reproduce in their environment tend to be the ones that stick around, while less favored ones die out. What that means, is that if a species fits into the overall big picture in the environment, then it lives. But if the environment changes so that a species can't live in it, then that species dies. This why why really simple species like jellyfish, bacteria, or fungus are still here while the more "advanced" dinosaurs are gone.
This is also why we have to be careful about not wiping out too many species; when you zoom out and look at the whole ecosystem, it is clear that "more evolved" humans actually cannot survive without thousands of "less evolved" species doing all kinds of tasks that we are barely even aware of.
Another place where you can see this is by looking at the technology people use. Sure, some things look more "advanced," but many times, the best advancement is to pick the simplest thing that does the job well. A microwave is way more efficient and fast than a barbecue grill, but we still grill because a microwave can't give us the same experience and flavor. But, it's fast and easy to use, so many families have both, one for some cases, and the other one for other cases. This is the same idea in the environment; we humans can build civilizations, but we need forests and wild animals to have a stable planet to live on. This is an issue that scientist call biodiversity, and it's one of the major environmental issues.
Next, evolution is very slow, and NEVER stops
Noticable evolution usually takes many generations to occur, much longer than we can see in our lifetimes (except maybe for bacteria, where a new generation is born every 20 minutes). However, just because it will take 10,000 years or more before we get a new breed of humans does not mean that changes aren't happening. In the last hundred years, new technology has radically changed the way we eat, move, live, and so on. What if we keep living this way for a very long time? It might be that humans will adapt to be totally dependent on life as we know it, and the end of civilization might literally be the end of humans! What would take our place? Could it be that the jellyfish floating around in the ocean will still be here long after we're gone?
Third, when "proving" evolution or intelligent design we need to define the terms
When we talk about "proving" one theory or another, it's worth noting what we're trying to prove. With evolution, we are specifically trying to explain where an ecosystem comes from. Namely, was the environment as we know it something that started all at once, just as we know it now (strict creationism), or did it arise out of species interacting with the environment and each other (strict evolution), or could it be that life had an intelligent origin, but the Originator did not necessarily interfere most of the time (intelligent design) ? Technically, these could all explain how we got here, but each one has widely different implications for what could or will happen in the future.
Further, it's worth pointing out that evolution deals with the origin of species and ecosystems, but it doesn't deal with the origin of life. More than once, I've seen people on either side of an origins debate confuse the word "evolution" with theories about the origin of the universe, which does the theory a disservice. In the same way, I've seen "evolutionists" be baffled at people who say that they agree with the idea of evolution but would get behind the inelligent design viewpoint: such people understand how genetics can change and affect species, but aren't convinced that this carries enough explanatory power on it's own.
Some people think that the debate shouldn't be had because any disgreement with textbook views is "unscientific," but I tihnk that debate and questioning is vital to advance understanding.