Debating Intelligent Design

I have reached the conclusion that debating Intelligent-Designers is largely futile, sadly.

Because the debate is in most cases intellectualy dishonest at its roots: ID has never really been about offering a serious, scientific explanation alternative to evolution. No, the purpose of ID is to introduce a supernatural agent (the Designer) in biology. And once that agent is accepted, it doesn't take much to morph it into the Judeo-Christian God.

I do not deny that there can be good-faith IDers out there, but they are few an far between - most are ardently religious types with an agenda. They hate Charles Darwin with a passion regarding him as the man who led humankind astray from religion - wait, n0, a rather specific branch of Chistianity: all the rest except maybe Judaism is only evil heresy for them.

So, unless you have the compatence and patience to explain everything in great detail, over and over again, there's really no point in debating. Witness the umpteenth evolution thread on LGF that is going nowhere (yes, I do read evolution threads on LGF - I enjoy watching intestine wars - so sue me).

For some serious evolutionary research on the classic E. Coli, read this article instead.