: As you know, I don't believe in Darwinism. Well, 'don't believe' may be are too strong words. I think there are too many black spots in that theory.
: At the same time I do not believe in ID also. For me last one mostly based on nice stories rather than on scientific evidences. But I know that for sure because I tried to study ID. Without that knowledge I would not even try to dispute/debate with its supporter's.
You don't have to study ID to debate/dispute it. I heard the president of the Discovery Institute (an English major, if I recall correctly) interviewed on the radio and I could have torn his arguments to shreds myself on the spot. Their main argument is "irreducible complexity", meaning "this cell/organ/whatever is composed of X number of different parts, and if any one of them were to be removed the whole cell/organ/whatever would cease to function." This is the same argument that Darwin himself faced in "how could something as magnificent and complex as the human eye have evolved from something lesser?" The ID crowd asserts that this means there must have been an "intelligent designer" of said cell/organ/whatever. You don't have to study ID to see the fallacies in their statements. All these decades later, scientists have a pretty fair understanding of how something as complex as a human eye could evolve, as well as eyes on other species like the octopus that developed from the outside in rather than from the inside out like ours.
That basically sums up 99% of their argument. They find something that Darwinism is unable to explain (yet) and point to that as "evidence" of an intelligent designer. Anyone who understands the basics of the scientific method can see that such statements are not science. THAT is why people like myself are adamantly opposed to ID being taught in science classes. It isn't science. It's the same old "god of the gaps" argument, though the ID supporters try to deny that until they're blue in the face. Put bluntly, they have no testable hypotheses. All they can do is look for things that nobody has explained yet, and try to convice everyone that the probability of that thing happening via Darwinian Evolution is so exceedingly remote that it somehow "makes more sense" to believe an "higher intelligence" set it up that way.
The rest of their arguments seem to be rhetorical devices and abuse of statistics. They'll take something like a flagellum on a certain species of bacteria and describe it in mechanical terms. They'll call it a "rotary motor" with "pistons" and "drive shafts" and other mechanical terms. Normally analogies like this are OK, but then they turn around and say something patently absurd like "you wouldn't expect a car's engine to assemble itself out of pieces in a junkyard, would you?"
Or they quote misleading and irrelevant statistics like "X% of medical doctors don't believe in Darwinism". Or "Y% of Americans feel ID should be taught alongside Darwinism". Or "Z PhDs have signed this list saying they reject Darwinism". So what? What difference would it make if every PhD in English around the world rejected Darwinism? What difference would it make to the orbits of the Solar system if, God forbid, the majority of humans still believed the Earth was the center of the universe?
$ select * from users where clue > 0
no rows returned