I was wandering what it would take to show to an IDer as Michael Behe or William Dembski that darwinism can account for the majority of observations made by biologists and that those yet unexplained aren’t unexplainable.
My conclusion is that the task is impossible.
Those guys must (may) sincerely think that they are smarter then the rest of their fellows scientists, have a better understanding of the world and this help them support their irrational (literally) belief on God. Or they are pretending so.
Whatever the case, if they admit that Intelligent Design isn’t more then an idea, without support, they would commit the equivalent of social suicide, if that don’t draw them to suicide to avoid the shame of failure.
Thus maintaining their positions is a matter of survival! And survival, literal or metaphorical, may be a sufficiently strong motive to induce intellectual blindness.
The same is true for every person basing his life in any credo that is challenged. And that include darwinists as well, at least those who will avoid discussing darwinism if a serious question is raised😉
So, what is the point to continue discussing with them, and trying to show the flaws of their reasoning? One shouldn’t expect to make them change their minds.
What is important is education of young people, those scientist, and citizens, of the next generations.
It is important to give them the best to be used as their starting point, teach them healthy ways to use for solving problems, at least something better than « We must wait and see« .