More often than not, evolutionists argue on two planes. The first point they leap from is that you're an idiot for not believing what I do. The second point is you're an idiot for believing what you believe. Very rarely do you find an evolutionist who can support Darwin's theory on a fact by fact basis. Without dicusssing ID in any manner, an evolutionist cannot explain the non-Darwinian progression of the entire fossil record, they do not talk about the Cambrian explosion, they provide no explanation for the peppered moth experiment, and they do no talk about the subsequent experiments that are based on premises that are no longer accepted.

They do not engage such arguments because they know that Darwin's theory requires a certain degree of faith that is difficult to explain to the progressively curious brain.

Is ID the answer? I don't know. I would prefer that it wasn't, because it would put an end to discovery. It would spell the end of our progressively curious intellect. If we curtailed our discovery on the basis that God did it all and God does it all, we would no longer search for the mechanizations of our universe, and we may lapse back to the state of the primitive man who sacrificed at the altar of a rain god to provide for a better harvest.

I think we should continue to search through discovery to find the greater answers to life in general, to the mechanizations of the universe and how we can better manipulate our surroundings. I don't think we should accept either theory on their merits, because they're both flawed.